Institute for 21st Century Energy News Feed

Phoenix Business Journal: U.S. Chamber Executivve Discusses Energy Issues Affecting Arizona, Nation

3/5/2010

by Patrick O'Grady

Arizona and the U.S. have some contrasting challenges when dealing with energy policy, and developing new energy sources will take time and money, according to Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Harbert was in Phoenix on Friday talking with the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce at that group’s sustainability summit. While Arizona has its own challenges developing a renewable energy future, doing so on a national level is even more problematic, she said.

“The problem with the debate is that it’s regional in nature,” she said. “The natural resource base is hugely different in South Carolina than it is in Montana.”

Renewable energy standards are being implemented piecemeal across the U.S. as many states pass their own measures. Harbert said the nation as a whole should focus on creating a new energy infrastructure rather than climate-change legislation.

“When you do it state by state, you recognize the regional approach,” she said. “If we decide to do it the other way, we have to do it so that it doesn’t disadvantage certain areas of the country.”

That focus should include resources such as solar (particularly in Arizona), as well as wind. Nuclear and natural gas also should play large roles as technology that can be developed here and provide a large portion of base power, Harbert said.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

LA Times: Clean Energy is Mired in Politics

2/22/2010

Clean energy is mired in politics

Uncertainty over proposals in Congress has firms holding off on investments.

By Jim Tankersley

Reporting from Washington — At a time when the U.S. economy is desperate for jobs and investment in future growth, a slew of clean-energy projects are on hold largely because of political stalemate in Washington.

With President Obama's energy and climate proposals bottled up in Congress, business leaders say they cannot tell what direction government policy will take on a variety of issues, including new energy taxes, tougher emissions standards for factories and vehicles, and guaranteed markets for start-up wind and solar power plants.

That has companies reluctant to pull the trigger on green-energy investments that could create employment and combat climate change. Case in point: New Jersey's largest utility, Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., is exploring development of a massive wind farm 16 miles off the state's coast. But it won't commit until the political winds in Washington are more certain, said Ralph Izzo, PSEG's president and chief executive.

"It's one thing to manage risk," he said. "It's another thing to gamble." The U.S. logjam stands in sharp contrast with the situation in China and Europe. Green investment there is booming in large part because their governments have committed to making renewables a major component of their national energy policies.

At stake for Americans are thousands of new jobs, from low-skilled maintenance work to high-level engineering, that are expected to result as the world transitions away from fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency estimates there could be as much as $10 trillion in international spending on clean energy over the next several decades.

Partly because of the bad economy, U.S. venture capitalists cut total clean-energy spending by half last year from a 2008 peak.

The Obama administration earmarked more than $80 billion in its economic stimulus package for clean energy, including research ventures, home weatherization programs and manufacturing tax credits.

But to spur more private investment and job creation, the federal government must reassure Wall Street that the need for clean energy will grow, experts said.

The nation's largest business lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says the Obama plan doesn't provide the kind of certainty that will spur clean energy forward.

Karen Harbert, who leads the Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, said investors needed to see more streamlined permitting processes and more predictable tax structures instead of a patchwork of incentives.

"Certainty," she said, "actually means simplicity."

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

New Energy Institute Analysis: Copenhagen Commitments Fall Short

2/18/2010

WASHINGTON, D.C.— A new analysis released today by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy reveals that even if emissions reduction pledges made under the Copenhagen Accord were adopted, the world would still see a significant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily because of growing emissions from developing countries.

In a new report titled “Copenhagen Accord By-the-Numbers,” the Energy Institute analyzed all 2020 emissions reduction targets submitted by developed and developing nations to the Copenhagen Accord. Under the Institute’s analysis, even if the targets submitted are adopted, global emissions in 2020 will still be above 2005 levels by as much as 20 percent.

While not formally adopted by the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Copenhagen Accord is a political agreement to stimulate action, with parties to the UNFCCC invited to submit their individual emissions reduction pledges and other actions to the UNFCCC secretariat last month.

“The road to an international climate agreement is a very difficult one, as evidenced by the challenges negotiators faced in Copenhagen,” said Steve Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “Looking ahead, with many of the most contentious issues in the climate negotiations unresolved, there’s an opportunity to open up a new chapter that focuses less on unrealistic targets and timetables and more on cooperation among governments and the business community.”

The Energy Institute has called for a realistic international approach that must include a larger role for the business community and emphasizes energy efficiency and new and advanced technology as integral to global energy and climate policy. Other priorities for the U.S. Chamber include reducing trade barriers for energy technology and maintaining strong intellectual property rights.

Last month, the Institute released an in depth review of what transpired in Copenhagen, along with a guide to possible paths forward in international climate negotiations. In September, the Chamber hosted the first meeting of the Major Economies Business Forum, designed to bring leading global business organizations together to work on energy and climate issues.

The mission of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy is to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind a common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. Through policy development, education, and advocacy, the Institute is building support for meaningful action at the local, state, national, and international levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

U.S. Chamber's Energy Institute Comments on First Nuclear Loan Guarantee

2/16/2010

Today, the Obama Administration announced that it is issuing the first loan guarantee to construct a nuclear power plant. The $8.3 billion loan guarantee will be granted for construction of two new reactors by Southern Company in Burke, Georgia.

The U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy has been a vocal proponent of loan guarantees to help facilitate a rapid expansion of nuclear power. Christopher Guith, vice president for policy at the Chamber’s Energy Institute, made the following statement about the announcement:

"We are very pleased by the Administration’s announcement that the Department of Energy (DOE) has finally issued its first conditional loan guarantee for two new state-of-the-art reactors at Southern Company's Vogtle Nuclear Site in Georgia. Nuclear power must be at the center of our energy future if we are to meet growing energy demands and reduce carbon emissions.

“While the terms of this agreement have yet to be disclosed, this is a significant milestone that should be commended. Federal loan guarantees are the single most important policy tool available to facilitate the construction of the country's largest source of emissions free baseload electricity.

“This announcement comes on the heels of DOE's budget request to Congress earlier this month which includes authorization for an additional $36 billion in nuclear loan guarantee authority. We are hopeful that Congress will provide this requested authority and DOE will continue to issue loan guarantees for additional reactors under existing authority .

“It should also be noted that an expansion of nuclear power will create thousands of American jobs. In fact, if all 26 plants now pursuing licenses are built, they could support an estimated 240,000 direct and indirect jobs. Jobs at nuclear plants pay 36 percent more than average salaries in the local area, which is all the more reason to utilize loan guarantees to help get these projects moving forward.”

New Study Confirms Need to Open Up More Areas for Oil and Gas Production

2/15/2010

Today, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) released the findings of a comprehensive study that details the impacts of continued moratoria on exploration for oil natural gas. The study was done by experts from Science Applied International Corporation (SAIC) and the Gas Technology Institute and sponsored by a variety of organizations, including the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Christopher Guith, vice president for policy at the Chamber’s Energy Institute, made the following statement regarding about the study’s findings:

“The report released by NARUC today confirms the need to open up more areas for exploration of oil and natural gas. The consequences of inaction are clear: higher energy prices, more imported oil, and stunted economic growth.

“The study brings to a close more than two years of work and establishes a reliable baseline of oil and gas resources available in the United States. There is much to be learned from it—for instance, it reveals that America has 16 percent more natural gas and 23% more oil reserves than previously estimated by the Department of Energy.

“We are hopeful that the results of this study will serve as an impetus for the Department of Interior to revisit its stance on oil and gas exploration. It is not too late for this administration to harness one of the most powerful economic resources available to Americans. If more of our energy resources are made available for responsible production, the nation will benefit from more jobs, lower energy prices, and be more secure.

“We are very pleased to have participated with such a respected group of experts from business, academia, and the Obama administration in producing this report.

February 2010 Newsletter

2/12/2010


Energy Institute vice president for policy Christopher Guith spoke at the Alaska Alliance in Anchorage about energy challenges facing Alaska and the nation. (Photo courtesy www.northerngaspipelines.com)	Karen Harbert was the featured speaker at the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce’ Forum Alabama 2010. She is pictured with Mobile Chamber Board Chairman David Trent (left) and President Win Hallet (right).

FY2011 Budget Picks Winners and Losers

Since our inception three years ago, the Energy Institute has been calling for a comprehensive energy policy that takes full advantage of all of America’s resources—from oil, natural gas, and coal to nuclear, solar, and wind. Tom Donohue underscored this message in his annual State of American Business address last month that called for creating jobs through investments in all energy resources and breakthroughs in cutting-edge technology.

In order to achieve that goal, we’ve long said that our government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in our energy policy. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget runs counter to this by imposing massive new taxes on the energy industry and creating investment uncertainty for businesses large and small.

On a positive note, the Administration’s budget requests an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority bringing the total amount available for new nuclear plants to $54.5 billion. While we’d like to see even more action, that’s certainly a step in the right direction and should help several proposed nuclear plants obtain financing.

Also, research and development for clean energy technologies again fared well in the budget. We have consistently called for a doubling of research and development funding because ultimately, we will need new, advanced clean energy technologies to meet our energy demands and address climate change concerns. However, we remain concerned that the focus is too narrow on research and not enough on getting these cutting edge technologies out into the marketplace. A better partnership with the private sector would go a long way to fixing that gap.

Traditional sources of energy like oil, natural gas and coal are hit hard in the Administration’s budget. Direct taxes and fees on the production of oil and natural gas are raised by over $40 billion, while the coal industry is hit with a tax of over $2 billion. Indirect taxes which will affect much of the private sector, big and small business, will raise that tab a lot higher.

These tax increases are short-sighted and run counter to the Administration’s pledge to create American jobs. The oil and gas industry employs over 9 million Americans whose jobs will be directly threatened should Congress enact these kind of tax increases. Moreover, it has been estimated that by removing regulatory obstacles to oil and gas production, we could create an additional 150,000 new jobs.

New taxes are also bad for our energy security. As we discussed last summer in our “Taxing Our Way to Energy Insecurity Again” report, imposing higher production costs on American sources of energy will mean less investment in domestic production, making our nation even MORE dependent on imported energy.

Similarly, coal companies are working to develop and implement new, clean coal technologies. Coal remains an affordable, abundant American resource that will provide a majority of our electricity for the foreseeable future. Raising taxes on coal production will compromise the industry’s ability to continue to advance new technology, place coal industry jobs in jeopardy and raise electricity prices for consumers.

The Energy Institute will be an active participant in the debate about our energy priorities, and the U.S. Chamber will no doubt be directly engaged with Congress about the choices they face. Our message will be clear: let’s make every energy source a winner in America.

Energy Institute Kicks off the New Year with Visits to Key Energy States

Energy Institute officials kicked off 2010 by visiting two states that play a major role in producing American energy. Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert was the keynote speaker at a luncheon sponsored by the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, while vice president for domestic policy Christopher Guith spoke to the Alaska Alliance Meet Alaska Energy Conference.

Among the attendees in Mobile was U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, who praised the Energy Institute’s efforts to educate the public about common sense energy policies. Harbert discussed the many opportunities that exist to create jobs and strengthen energy security by bringing more options to the table, whether they are nuclear, oil and natural gas, or renewable resources.

Guith updated Alaskans about the current state of federal energy policies and regulations and how they could affect Alaska’s businesses. He noted the importance of energy—particularly oil and natural gas—to the state’s (and nation’s) economy and discussed the potential for even more revenue should Alaska be allowed to fully tap into its resources by the federal government.

Beyond Copenhagen

The Energy Institute’s Stephen Eule represented the U.S. Chamber at the COP-15 Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December. Eule teamed with members of other global business organizations for the second meeting of the Major Economies Business Forum on Energy and Climate. He also provided firsthand insights into the fractures that became apparent between developing and developed countries that ultimately led to a political agreement that could not be ratified by the 192 nations at UN conference.

Now that Copenhagen is over, the Institute has shifted its focus to the upcoming meetings in Bonn and Mexico. Stephen Eule summarized the current state of negotiations and took a look at future possibilities in a new analysis titled “Copenhagen Accord and Discord: COP15 and the Many Paths to Mexico.”

Planning for the next Major Economies Business Forum is already underway. Eule will remain fully engaged in the international negotiations to help focus the Administration on a realistic climate agreement that is workable for the business community and focuses on technology and intellectual property protections.

Fate of Climate Bill Uncertain

While President Obama declared prospects for a domestic climate bill still alive in his State of the Union address, it remains to be seen whether Congress will act on legislation this year. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are working on an alternative to the Boxer-Kerry climate bill, which passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year, but lacks support in the full Senate. The Senators have been talking to stakeholders and groups—including the U.S. Chamber—about the bill, but no text has been circulated.

Any potential climate legislation will likely have to wait while the Senate considers jobs legislation and financial reform, and health care still looms as a contentious issue in Congress. Opposition to cap and trade proposals, such as those in the Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey bills, appear to be strengthening, with some members that voted for the original House legislation now publicly opposing it.

View from the States--Missouri

Stop cap and trade from driving away Missouri jobs and businesses
Daniel P. Mehan
President / CEO
Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Congress continues to discuss legislation that would greatly increase energy prices in Missouri, making it far more expensive to do business in the state and hurting Missouri’s ability to compete in a global marketplace. Central to the legislation is the creation of a system of carbon limits and allowances that could be traded between companies, commonly called “cap and trade.”

While the cap and trade system would certainly drive up energy costs around the nation, impact studies show that Midwestern state, and Missouri in particular, would bear the brunt of this legislation. Because it punishes carbon emissions, the bill would unfairly punish states that rely on coal for electricity.

Such a system could have devastating effects on Missouri’s economy and the cause a drastic increase on rates Missouri citizens pay for electricity.

With the state using more than 34 million tons of coal per year, Missouri is the nation’s 10th largest coal consumer. Power produced by burning coal accounts for more than 80 percent of Missouri’s energy supply, according the American Coal Foundation.

A Missouri Public Utility Association study this spring reported that ratepayers in Missouri could see huge rate increases depending on the aggressiveness of the new law. The study looked at future rate increases under three potential carbon emission reduction cases, each broken down into six allocation scenarios. It concluded that through 2030, Missouri customers could see 8 to 35 percent increases under a low emission reduction case, increases of 32 to 80 percent in a moderate case, and 60 to 105 percent under a high emission reduction case.

Missouri families and small businesses simply cannot afford the enormous rate increases that this bill would artificially force upon our state.

With the thrust of the support for the bill coming from the East and West coasts, it is up to Missouri and other Midwestern states to encourage our elected officials to push back against this proposal. As Missouri business struggle to stay afloat and Missouri’s workers worry about their jobs, now is not the time for East and West Coast “solutions” that punish Midwest energy sources and penalize states that have made prudent energy decisions.

A basic truth of economics is that cost drives business. The fear with cap and trade is that the increase in costs that come with the bill will drive businesses and jobs right out of Missouri. Missouri families and small businesses simply cannot afford the enormous rate increases that would be artificially forced upon our state. We need to let our elected officials know that this legislation would do nothing but hurt Missourians.

To meet America’s energy demands and address environmental challenges, we should get serious about expanding our innovative technologies like clean coal and carbon sequestration rather than placing artificial restrictions on growth.
Our economy desperately needs more energy options, not a massive energy tax under the guise of a cap and trade bill. The Waxman-Markey bill ignores the benefits of an important clean energy option that will also create jobs: nuclear power. Nuclear energy currently powers about 13 percent of Missouri’s electricity needs through the Callaway nuclear plant near Fulton, Missouri. In fact, the Callaway nuclear power plant produces about 75 percent of Missouri’s emissions-free electricity. Nuclear works here in Missouri and should be part of a national solution.

If we adopt an approach that encourages investment and ingenuity in all energy options, Missouri and our nation can flourish. The stimulus bill passed by Congress last year included billions of dollars for clean energy research and development, which could benefit Missouri. Congress should focus its efforts on making sure this investment in our laboratories results in real projects that bring new sources of energy to the marketplace.

The business community in Missouri and the rest of the country must stand together to make sure that our energy policy doesn’t send the economy further into a tailspin. We can and must transition to a low-carbon future, but shedding good, high-paying jobs and jeopardizing affordable and reliable energy is not the way to do it.

Daniel P. Mehan is the President / CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Stop cap and trade from driving away Missouri jobs and businesses

2/5/2010

by Daniel P. Mehan
President / CEO
Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Such a system could have devastating effects on Missouri’s economy and the cause a drastic increase on rates Missouri citizens pay for electricity.

Missouri families and small businesses simply cannot afford the enormous rate increases that this bill would artificially force upon our state.

Daniel P. Mehan is the President / CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

U.S. Chamber Expert Addresses Nebraska’s Energy Opportunities

2/4/2010

LINCOLN, NE — The president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy today told Nebraskans that their state was poised to play a pivotal role in America’s energy future.

Addressing the annual meeting of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, Karen Harbert highlighted obstacles and opportunities facing Nebraska and the nation in ensuring a secure and prosperous 21st century energy economy. Harbert told attendees—including Governor David Heineman—that a comprehensive plan that takes advantage of all resources and promotes investments in efficiency and infrastructure will be needed to meet growing energy needs in Nebraska and across the nation.

“With its abundant natural resources like wind and biofuels and its diverse energy portfolio that includes coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power, Nebraska has an opportunity to demonstrate that the best approach to energy is a comprehensive one,” said Harbert.

Currently, Nebraska is reliant on coal for about two-thirds of its electricity, with nuclear providing about 30 percent and hydroelectric power the remainder.

“Nebraskans know first-hand the benefits of clean, emissions-free nuclear power,” Harbert said. “That means that Nebraskans also have a stake in ensuring that the federal government meet its legal obligations to handle the waste from those reactors.”

371 thousand megawatts of electricity are produced every year at the Fort Cooper and Calhoun nuclear power plants in Nebraska. The Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget proposes to permanently cancel the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program without an effective alternative plan for nuclear waste.

Harbert also discussed the need to streamline the burdensome permitting process for energy projects of all types, which is strangling the business community’s ability to build and expand traditional and renewable energy projects.

“The regulatory process is now being manipulated to delay and cancel needed energy projects,” Harbert said. “We must put an end to all of the “green tape”—the frequent abuse of environmental and siting regulations - which is threatening new energy projects and the jobs and industries they could create.”

While in Nebraska, Harbert met with lawmakers as well as editorial writers of the Lincoln Journal Star. Harbert also taped an interview with the Mid American Money Program at Creighton University that will air regionally in the coming weeks.

The mission of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy is to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind a common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. Through policy development, education, and advocacy, the Institute is building support for meaningful action at the local, state, national, and international levels.

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

Energy Institute Comments on Blue Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Waste

1/29/2010

Christopher Guith, vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, made the following statement regarding the Administration’s announcement that it has formulated a “blue ribbon” commission to study the disposal of nuclear waste:

“Our nation’s security and energy future will benefit from the commission’s fresh look at our stalled nuclear waste policy, particularly because it will be led by such highly respected statesman as Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft. The commission should be focused on crafting a workable consensus on how the federal government can finally meet its legal obligations. To do so, it should consider all options – including Yucca Mountain - as it makes recommendations for a comprehensive strategy as Congress has instructed.”

“Almost a year ago, the Administration announced its intention to cancel the Yucca Mountain program without proposing an alternative plan. Given the legal obligations of the federal government to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, as well as the nearly $30 billion the American ratepayers have paid to manage and dispose of nuclear waste, it is incumbent upon the Administration to craft a path forward. While overdue, we welcome today’s announcement, which allows that process to begin.”

More information about the options the panel will likely be considering can be found in the Energy Institute’s “Revisiting Nuclear Waste Policy” report issued last year.

Investors Business Daily: Cap-Drill-Nuke Idea Faces Big Challenges

1/29/2010

Cap-Drill-Nuke Idea Faces Big Challenges

By SEAN HIGGINS

President Obama tried to revive cap-and-trade legislation Wednesday night by endorsing a Senate idea to include more nuclear power and offshore drilling. But a concrete plan is lacking, with support hard to come by, especially in an election year.

The three key negotiators — Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. — have been working on the concept since at least October and have yet to even introduce a bill.

"Senator Graham continues to meet with an assortment of senators on both sides of the aisle to discuss a pathway forward," said Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for the senator.
Asked when they might be able to present a bill and announce a list of co-sponsors, he replied, "(We have) nothing to share with you on those subjects."

Lobbyists told IBD the bill is bogged down over exactly how it will cut carbon emissions. One insider predicted that a deal wouldn't be reached for three or four months.

A deal would require green groups and the energy industry to come together. But few Republicans are willing to back any agreement with a cap-and-trade or other carbon-cutting program.

Conservative and business groups say any such deal would raise energy prices in a weak economy. GOP leaders have taken to calling the idea "cap-and-tax."

Scant GOP Support
A lot of Republicans want no part of a climate bill, even with nuclear and drilling sweeteners. Likely big electoral gains this fall only harden their resolve.

With some Democrats expected to vote no, at least eight Republicans would need to support the bill, analysts say. Those votes have not materialized.

:It is going to be a heavy lift for them to come up with a compromise bill that appeals to both sides," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Any concession to one side costs support from the other.

Supporters are nevertheless hopeful. With health care apparently sidelined, something else can take the forefront on the Senate agenda. That could easily be jobs or banking regulation. But with climate change, Democrats are making an effort at recruiting Republicans.

In his State of the Union address Wednesday, Obama reached out by adding explicit endorsements of nuclear and offshore drilling as part of a broader compromise on clean energy programs.

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country," the president said.

He added: "It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development."

It wasn't "drill, baby, drill." But it was significant coming from a Democratic president. During the Bush years, GOP proposals for nuclear power and drilling were usually attacked.

A 'Seismic Shift'?
"We are very heartened by his comments," said Derrick Freeman, legislative director at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "We don't look at it as just rhetoric" from the White House.
Kerry called Obama's endorsement a "seismic shift."

"The inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that this issue has stalled is dead wrong," Kerry said in a statement, adding, "Senators Graham, Lieberman, and I will continue building consensus on both sides of the aisle."

Karen Harbert, president of the Chamber of Commerce's 21st Century Energy Institute, was much more skeptical.

"I don't think (the White House) broke any new ground," she said. "We haven't seen anything concrete."

Harbert noted that nuclear and drilling were more administrative matters than legislative ones.

What's in the bill matters less than actions the White House can already take on its own, she argued.

"The Department of the Interior has held for close to a year now the plan for expanding (drilling) leasing on-shore and off-shore hostage," she said. "We have no movement by the administration to expedite the permitting or siting or funding of new nuclear plants."

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

AP: Panel Selected to Review Nuclear Waste Options

1/29/2010

The Associated Press

Friday, Jan. 29, 2010

The Obama administration has appointed former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to oversee a commission that will recommend alternatives to Yucca Mountain for storing spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

The commission will have 15 members, including scientists, industry representatives and former elected officials, the Energy Department said Friday.

Congress had designated Yucca Mountain as the site for the nation's first permanent nuclear waste repository. But Nevada lawmakers, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have strongly opposed the site, which is located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

President Barack Obama also said he doesn't view Yucca Mountain as a workable option. He and Congress have drastically cut spending on developing the repository, providing just enough to keep the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission moving forward with a license application in favor of the project.

The commission will recommend alternative solutions in an interim report within 18 months. A final report will be completed within two years.

One thing is clear from the announcement Thursday: Yucca Mountain will not be considered as an option, officials said.

"As the president has said many times, we're done with Yucca. We need to be about looking at alternatives," said Carol Browner, an Obama adviser on energy and climate change.

While welcoming the announcement, some industry officials believe Yucca Mountain should not be ruled out.

"The commission should be focused on crafting a workable consensus on how the federal government can finally meet its legal obligations," said Christopher Guith with the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "To do so, it should consider all options, including Yucca Mountain."

National Journal Expert Blog: EPA Threat Stalling Action on Climate

1/26/2010

The Institute's Vice President for Climate and Technology, Steve Eule, is a contributor to National Journal's Energy and Environment Expert Blog.

EPA Threat Stalling Action On Climate
By Stephen Eule

Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

No, the Environmental Protection Agency should not regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber’s been very clear that the CAA wasn’t designed for-- and is ill suited to address-- the complexities of reducing GHG emissions. Does anyone really believe, for example, that EPA can set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for greenhouse gases when the U.S. accounts for, on net, only about a 15% (and shrinking) share of global emissions? How can EPA set what it can’t control?

One of the major selling points of a comprehensive energy and climate change bill is that it would establish a single set of rules for controlling GHGs. It isn’t working out that way, however. The Waxman-Markey bill, for example, doesn’t bar EPA from regulating businesses that don’t fall under the rubric of the cap and trade scheme the bill would set up. The Kerry-Boxer bill goes even further and leaves the door open to EPA regulation of “capped” and “uncapped” facilities. And EPA Administrator Lis...

Our concerns go well beyond the threat of EPA regulation. There are many other administrative processes using other statutes and authorities as equally ill-suited to the task as the CAA—such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act—that are being stretched beyond recognition to regulate GHGs through the back door. Many states and localities have implemented or are considering programs to limit greenhouse gases. Trial lawyers and state attorneys general are using litigation to win awards against industries, primarily power generators, to reduce emissions through the courts. The findings language in both the House and Senate bills stating that greenhouse gases cause injury to persons, property, and the environment is an open invitation for trial lawyers to sue. Adding layers of complexity atop an already complex situation is hardly the way to provide business the predictability it needs.

I think one of the ironies in the whole climate change debate is that the threat of EPA regulation may actually be holding back sensible climate legislation. To say that the current bills are not as bad as the EPA alternative, which most everyone agrees is pretty bad, isn’t saying much. Who wants to make such a Hobson’s choice? Taking the regulatory threat off the table could free the discussion and lead it in a more constructive and less partisan direction. We’ve seen in the most recent Pew survey that climate change still remains dead last in the public’s consciousness, and while energy has dropped down the list, it’s still a much more important concern to the American public. There’s an opportunity here to get off the climate change merry-go-round with energy and climate legislation that focuses on efficiency, developing advanced new technologies, commercializing existing technologies, and cutting the “green tape” that stymies energy projects from going forward—all without throwing the economy into a tail-spin. That’s a much more compelling path forward.

Other blog responses are available here.

Copenhagen Accord and Discord: COP-15 and the Many Roads to Mexico

1/25/2010

The U.S. Chamber’s representative at Copenhagen, Steve Eule, has written a new analysis of what happened at the COP-15 Climate Conference—and where we go from here. The report is available at the Energy Institute’s International Climate webpage.

ChamberPost Blog: After Copenhagen

by Matt Letourneau

As we've blogged about, the Energy Institute's Steve Eule represented the US Chamber at the UN COP-15 Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Just a little over a month ago, the conference concluded with a "political agreement" brokered by President Obama. Steve blogged about the agreement and gave a quick wrap up of the conference a few weeks ago.

Now that the dust is settled, Steve is back with a more in-depth analysis of what happened in Copenhagen, as well as a look at the possible paths forward as preparations begin for the UNFCC meetings in Bonn and Mexico.

Titled "Copenhagen Accord and Discord: COP-15 and the Many Roads to Mexico," Steve's new analysis covers three aspects of the Copenhagen meeting—the Accord itself, the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), and the Ad –Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).

While it sounds a bit confusing, the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP are actually the two negotiating tracks to a new international treaty. Developed countries favor a single, comprehensive treaty that includes all nations (the AWG-LCA approach), rather than separate agreements under Kyoto (AWG-KP approach). It was the tension between the two negotiating tracks that led to inaction in Copenhagen, which prompted the Copenhagen Accord to be struck outside of either process.

Steve outlines six possible outcomes of the international negotiations now that Copenhagen is behind us. His analysis also includes a handy flow chart that demonstrates where we've been and where we might be heading. You can read the new analysis and stay up to date on the international negotiations at the Energy Institute's International Climate webpage.

National Journal: Are Climate Meetings Too Big to Succeed?

1/9/2010

With 45,000 registered conference-goers, Copenhagen tested the limits of such gatherings.

by Darren Goode

Looking for more?
Are mega-conferences such as last month's U.N.-sponsored Copenhagen extravaganza, with its 45,000 registered attendees and countless observers and protesters, the most promising route to achieving worldwide reductions in the greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming?

"I think everybody's asking themselves that question right now," said Dirk Forrister, who headed a White House climate-change task force under President Clinton and is now managing director of Natsource, an environmental asset management company based in New York City. "This time the system almost collapsed under its own weight."

In the view of Elliot Diringer, vice president for international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, "Copenhagen was an imperfect test of an imperfect process and exposed many of its weaknesses but didn't necessarily prove them fatal."

Throughout the December 7-18 gathering, formally known as the 15th Conference of the Parties, U.N. and Danish officials struggled with procedural objections from some of the poorest of the 193 countries represented. That problem was compounded by logistical nightmares caused by tens of thousands of protesters -- some of them violent -- and by the fact that the conference site could accommodate only a third of the official participants. Many of the 45,000 attendees were literally left out in the cold.

Ultimately, the two-track process was preserved. But five countries -- Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, and Venezuela -- nevertheless declined to support the political agreement reached during the conference's final hours. Unaminity was preserved by having all 193 nations take note of -- rather than formally adopt -- the Copenhagen Accord. U.N. officials argue that "taking note" has the same effect as adopting the accord.

By January 31, all developed and developing nations are supposed to submit their economy-wide carbon-reduction goals to the United Nations. (The United States, China, and a number of other major countries announced their 2020 goals shortly before the Copenhagen talks.)

Yet to be established are guidelines for how the international community will monitor each country's progress toward its goals. The next official global-warming conference is scheduled for November in Mexico City. But unless participants expect to wrap up a legally binding treaty there, that gathering is unlikely to be as unwieldy as Copenhagen's was.

Much of the climate-change spotlight is shifting to the U.S. Senate, which rejected the Kyoto Protocol but might now fill in some of Copenhagen's missing details about how an international carbon market would work. Haverkamp said that there is "some space there for Congress to set a template for the international process."

Looking back on the Copenhagen talks, U.S. officials insist they were not distracted from the real back-and-forth going on behind the scenes with China and other key nations. "The negotiations themselves don't get caught up in all the hoopla," agreed Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy. He was director of the Energy Department's Office of Climate Change Policy & Technology during the Bush administration.

Yet Eule and Diringer say that U.N. climate conferences could perhaps be replaced or supplemented by a forum of major economic powers and key poorer nations. "I'm not saying we should abandon the U.N. process just yet," Diringer added. "The question is whether the process can be made workable. If not, what are the alternatives?"

According to Eule, "It's a Catch-22 situation. If you get a smaller group together, it's not necessarily representative of the larger group. If you get a larger group together, it gets confusing and unmanageable."

New York Times: Fault Lines Remain After Climate Talks

1/4/2010

January 4, 2010
Green Inc. Column

By TOM ZELLER Jr.
NEW YORK — The recently concluded climate talks in Copenhagen suggested to many commentators and participants that the global community, as represented by the United Nations, was incapable of broad agreement on just about anything.

Others argued that such judgments were too swift and praised the outcome — a five-page document — as an historic first-step toward meaningful global action on the climate.

Opinions have been as varied and discordant in the aftermath of the meeting as they were at the sessions in the Bella Center in Copenhagen, where thousands of delegates argued and postured — to uncertain ends — in the twilight of 2009.

For the past two weeks, those involved in the conference and onlookers alike have traded a variety of “I told you so” denunciations of the meeting; celebrations of its perceived collapse; and mild praise for the ability of nearly 200 nations to come together and, at the very least, agree to keep talking — essentially what the Copenhagen Accord accomplished.

With the new year just getting under way, it is likely that a good deal of finger pointing — and finger wagging — is yet to come. For now, the following reactions from a cross section of politicians, industry representatives, authors, environment advocates and others suggest that, if nothing else, the fault lines that preceded the conference are still very much in place.

President Barack Obama said on “PBS NewsHour,” a U.S. television program:

“I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen.”

“It didn’t move us the way we need to,” he said. “The science says that we’ve got to significantly reduce emissions over the next — over the next 40 years. There’s nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that that happens.”

Naomi Klein, author of “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” wrote on HuffingtonPost.com:

“If Barack Obama had come to Copenhagen with a transformative and inspiring commitment to getting the U.S. economy off fossil fuels, all the other major emitters would have stepped up.”

“Instead of leading,” she said, “Obama arrived with embarrassingly low targets and the heavy emitters of the world took their cue from him.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, wrote in an op-ed article for USA Today:

“The case for the U.S. entering into an international global warming treaty took a significant blow at the latest failed United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen. Not only did the conference fail to reach a meaningful agreement, but that failure will further jeopardize any action on global warming by an already skeptical U.S. Senate.”

James E. Hansen, a climatologist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Yes! Magazine:

“The proposals discussed in Copenhagen were like the indulgences of the Middle Ages.

“The sinners are the developed countries, which are responsible for most of the excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They want to continue business as usual, by buying off the developing countries.”

Elliot Diringer, vice president for international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said last month:

“These pledges are not binding. They are statements of intent, not obligation. But that is not what disappoints me. I never expected Copenhagen to produce more than a political accord.

“What troubles me is that governments did not resolve to move next to a legally binding treaty. That goal was part of the tentative agreement announced by President Obama. But then he left, and in final deal-making, it somehow vanished. The negotiations will of course continue. Governments agreed they’d meet next year in Mexico, the year after in South Africa. But with what type of agreement in mind?”

Steve Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said:

“Discussions on the accord were dominated largely by the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The European Union, which already has committed to a comprehensive climate change mitigation program, played a very minor role in drafting the accord. As an aside — this should serve as food for thought for those who think the U.S. would have had greater influence if the U.S. negotiating team had had a climate bill in its back pocket — it didn’t work out that way for the Europeans.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Major Economies Business Forum Statement from Copenhagen

12/15/2009

Following a successful meeting at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in September, the Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate just completed its second meeting, which was held at the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the participating business organizations--which represent over 25 million businesses worldwide--issued the following statement on the COP15 negotiations.

December 15th 2009

THE MAJOR ECONOMIES BUSINESS FORUM URGES NEGOTIATORS TO COMMIT TO A CLEAR AND PREDICTABLE STRATEGY THAT ENABLES BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

The Major Economies Business Forum (MEBF) met on the 15th of December in Copenhagen to take stock on the ongoing COP15 negotiations and to communicate our views on how the Major Economies Forum (MEF) process can complement the UNFCCC process, and identify priorities for the MEBF in both regards.

In our view, the post 2012 UNFCCC agreement should provide a clear framework for international co-operative action in the areas of mitigation, adaptation, technology, and finance. It should be consistent with the scientific understanding of the risks of climate change and based on a long-term shared vision that respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities among all countries.

We support continued elaboration of a post 2012 framework to mitigate and adapt to climate change that includes all major economies, drives innovation and investment for economic growth and energy security, and provides a framework that engages the resources and commitment of our business community to the fullest extent. Our organizations have a strong interest in ensuring that a new agreement promotes economic development, competitive business communities, and a level playing field for industry.

We are optimistic that the agreement reached in Copenhagen can set the stage for progress on these fronts. The role of business is key to success both in a prompt start to action, and in the further elaboration of priority areas to be developed: adaptation, mitigation, technology and finance. The response to climate change will require decades of effort, so it is important to lay a careful framework for immediate and long term action: one that is flexible and allows business to maximize our long-term contribution.

The MEBF agreed that it is vital to restore the health of our economy to allow business to scale up innovation and production of more cost-effective, practical sustainable solutions. Therefore, the ongoing climate change deliberations should further define and commit to clear and predictable objectives and cooperative actions as soon as possible within the enabling contexts of global markets, trade and investment. The MEF should continue its focus on MRV, technology and public private partnerships as priorities where the Major Economy (ME) countries can add value to the broader international process. We agreed to continue our dialogue as the post-2012 process unfolds, to further elaborate recommendations on the following priority issues and share them with MEF member countries and the UNFCCC.

• Open markets and trade are indispensable to cost-effective solutions in the post 2012 frameworks. Regulatory frameworks and flexible mechanisms will have to interface efficiently to optimise resources and promote appropriate business and consumer incentives. In particular, the CDM should be enhanced and simplified for broader private sector utilization. While a global greenhouse gas market will not appear in the short run, regional markets should be simplified and improved to facilitate expansion and linking, where they are employed. Addressing potential transitions involving existing and emerging mechanisms will be necessary, maintaining clear and common rules and transparency.

• The vast majority of commercial transactions and investment occur through established market channels outside of the UNFCCC. As both carbon obligations and greenhouse markets grow, the enabling frameworks that support private sector investment and innovation are key to success, and synergies between commercial transactions and greenhouse markets should be identified and strengthened.

• Financial flows from both public and private sector sources should be scaled up and leveraged as efficiently as possible. In many cases, the most effective use of public finance will be to enable action by the private sector and to lower some of the risks associated with these activities. Transparency, simplicity, predictability and strong and accountable institutions are needed to optimize private funding and public funding. This principle applies to approaches at the national, regional and international level.

• Stimulating research, innovation, investment and deployment of existing and advanced technology, with a strong focus on energy efficiency, on the necessary scale for both mitigation and adaptation is a challenge in which the public and private sectors must partner. Technology transfer mechanisms should work in harmony with business-to-business transactions, and not add layers of bureaucracy. We welcome the initiative to hold a Clean Energy Ministerial for MEF and other countries in Washington, DC next year and hope to take part.

• The protection of intellectual property rights is necessary to encourage business to engage in technology partnerships and invest in research, development and deployment of the broad range of technologies that are needed on all fronts. Weakening IPR protection would threaten the incentives businesses have to invest in creating and bringing new technologies to market

• Building national capacity in all nations will be essential to innovate and deploy advanced technologies, for example through the creation of appropriate regulatory frameworks, development of public infrastructure, and education of a new generation of scientists and engineers. Regional centers can play a very important role in this regard, promoting two-way communications, as can partnerships like the Asia Pacific Partnership (APP). Business is ready to help define and participate in such new collaborative approaches

• The effectiveness of the post 2012 agreement and its implementation by Major Economies depends on robust monitoring, reporting and verification of the progress of mitigation strategies and financial plans. Business, based on its long experience with greenhouse gas and financial reporting stands ready to help define and implement the appropriate tools.

No final deal expected during summit, but Copenhagen draws plenty of interest

12/7/2009

By Jim Snyder
The Hill

Read the full story at The Hill

The climate change summit at Copenhagen, which starts this week, isn’t likely to end with a legally binding agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions to curb global warming.

But that’s not keeping environmental advocates, manufacturers, clean tech executives and others from attending in hopes of influencing the negotiations, which may lead to a series of less far reaching political agreements among participating countries.

“It’s better to have your voice heard now than waiting to later if the political framework is going to impact what a final agreement will look like,” said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a group of lawmakers, environmental advocates and corporate executives that support energy conservation efforts.

Callahan said a number of companies represented in the Alliance plan to attend the summit.

Stephen Eule, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s energy policy arm, called Copenhagen an “important way station” to a final global deal on climate change. The Chamber is sending Eule to continue to press businesses concerns about how a carbon cap could limit economic growth.

“It is a chance for business to get our message out to a large audience,” he said.

Energy lobbyists describe United Nations negotiations as sufficiently confusing and Byzantine as to make Congress seem efficient and straightforward by comparison. With a binding agreement unlikely, some industries are sitting it out. The coal industry seems to be largely skipping the event, even though it’s likely to be among the most impacted by a carbon cap.

For companies that operate in the United States, the main stage remains Congress, which will impose the rules under which they would have to comply and where specific earmarks to their particular benefit can be sought.

Still, interests like labor, energy efficiency advocates and companies of various stripes want to make sure the outline of a carbon cutting system covers their own interests.

Advocates for climate legislation in particular want to squeeze as much as possible out of Copenhagen to rebuild momentum here for a cap and trade bill.

...

Eule of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy said the business group wants to maintain a dialogue among international companies that started in earnest in September at an event the group sponsored in Washington, D.C.

He said companies often have felt left out of the negotiating process on climate issues, but can be important players in a final overarching climate treaty.

“We have the expertise. We’ll be responsible for the financing, the next step in technological developments,” he said. “There are a number of issues that will have a direct impact on businesses. We can say, this doesn’t work, but this might.”

Read the full story at The Hill

Minnesotans say cap-and-trade demands international solution

12/3/2009

By David C. Olson

Clean air and a sound environment are vital to all Minnesotans and especially to the business community. Our greatest challenge is to accomplish this without slowing the development of our economy and job growth. Of particular concern is any initiative which puts Minnesota businesses at an economic disadvantage with their competitors in the national and global marketplaces.
That’s why the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and its statewide network of local chamber partners reject any cap-and-trade policy that places Minnesota or the Midwest on an island. We advocate a national policy – but only if it is crafted within the context of an international agreement. That critical element is missing from the current debate in Congress.

We endorse the goal to gradually reduce greenhouse gases from air emissions and to use a trading market among businesses, if it reduces the cost of reducing emissions. We support wise investments that diversify the nation's energy generation and make our nation more energy efficient and independent.

The cap-and-trade legislation before Congress, however, is certain to result in higher energy prices that will be passed to ratepayers. Our core concern is the impact of those costs on jobs and the ability of Minnesota businesses to compete in the global economy. The mining and forest products industries particularly will be hit hard. However, any product manufacturer with global sales will be less competitive if energy prices increase significantly.

This negative impact will be exacerbated by the proposed allocation of emission allowances for electric utilities – a formula based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on sales. Utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than if allowances were based on emissions alone. Customers in Minnesota and the Midwest rely heavily on coal-powered electricity generation. As a result, they will be affected disproportionately compared with other regions, creating another competitive disadvantage for businesses.

A more equitable system is to distribute allowances solely on the basis of emissions. We appreciate the efforts of Minnesota’s two U.S. senators – Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken – who recently advocated this position in a letter to U.S. Senate leadership.

Technology is important to this debate, too. New, cost-effective carbon capture and storage technologies are necessary if we are to reduce greenhouse gases and be able to use the abundant, domestic resources like coal to meet energy needs. Nuclear power also will be critical to addressing growing electricity needs in a carbon-constrained world. Regulatory and liability hurdles must be addressed to ensure the timely development of all technology options.

The Minnesota Chamber is not standing still on addressing climate change. We believe much more can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without additional government regulations, specifically in the areas of conservation and efficiency. To that end, we have launched Energy Smart which recently marked its one-year anniversary. Energy Smart helps businesses become more energy efficient. As a result, companies reduce carbon emissions and save money on their bottom lines.

The business community has a strong record of advancing initiatives that benefit the environment and the economy. But we believe the federal legislation as currently framed – especially without an accompanying international agreement – won’t solve the problem, be efficient or cost effective. We are making that position very clear with our state’s congressional delegation.

David Olson is president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. For more information, visit www.mnchamber.com. The views in this article are his own.

December 2009 Newsletter

12/3/2009


The Energy Institute hosted Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall for a dialogue about the energy challenges facing North America. Wall (right) is pictured with advisors.	Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue listens as Energy Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert discusses the role of business in the energy and climate debate at the Georgia Business Summit.

2009 Year in Review

As we close out this year, there is little doubt that 2009 has been a year full of change and challenges for our nation. On the energy front, the nation’s new political leaders, President Barack Obama and Congress, had campaigned on a commitment to significantly impact on our nation’s energy policy, both this year and for those to come. Here at the Institute that meant we doubled down to propose a course for our nation that was pro-growth, pro-energy, and pro-environment. The Institute has been in high gear providing facts, clarity, and analysis to help policymakers and the public better understand our energy challenges and their solutions.

We too started with new leadership with a new President and CEO Karen Harbert. Harbert immediately set the Institute on an ambitious course that included visits to 28 states, new policy initiatives, and a number of marquee events featuring some of the most influential policy experts and energy thought leaders in our nation.

We were an early and vocal supporter of President Obama’s efforts to include dramatic increases in clean energy research and development in the stimulus package as we had called for in the transition plan we submitted last November. We later welcomed the Administration’s commitment to carbon capture and sequestration technology investments in its budget submissions for fiscal year 2010. However, significant additional investments and efforts are still needed to meet our nation’s energy demands and transition to a lower carbon future. We have been quick to support policy proposals that promote investments in America’s energy resources, efficiency, and infrastructure, especially those that were among the 88 policy recommendations we delivered to the President.

But when necessary, the Institute also has spoken out about ill-advised policy decisions by the new Administration and Congress that would hamper economic growth, shed American jobs, or hurt U.S. competitiveness. In particular, the decision in March to cancel Yucca Mountain without announcing a new policy to handle nuclear waste was greeted with concern by the Institute and the business community. At that time, the Department of Energy had committed to appoint a blue ribbon commission to recommend policy options by the end of April. Nearly nine months later, Americans, particularly the business community, are still waiting. As part of our efforts to make constructive policy contributions to the debate, the Institute, led by Vice President for Policy Christopher Guith, issued a report in May outlining our nation’s history in managing nuclear waste and recommending policy solutions moving forward.

There have also been a number of unfortunate developments in the area of oil and natural gas. The Department of Interior delayed offering any of America’s significant oil and gas reserves for new exploration and so far has not issued a new leasing plan. Similarly, nearly 90 onshore leases were also cancelled in Utah. The Administration also proposed massive tax increases on oil and gas in its FY2010 budget. Once again, the Institute responded with a prompt and factual report on the negative impacts such taxes would have on energy security and costs to consumers.

While these developments were taking place, Institute officials actively engaged regional chambers of commerce and worked to bring local business views to the Administration and Congressional leaders. We held a series of briefings on timely energy issues for Capitol Hill staffers. In May, we brought in top policymakers, including Secretary Salazar, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander, for a first of its kind dialogue on energy security with business leaders, giving both sides a window into the realities that each face.

The second half of the year was dominated by climate change on the domestic and international fronts. Much of the attention in Washington centered on the legislative initiatives in the House and Senate and we were invited to testify several times on our recommendations for a clean and secure energy future. To help explain the issue in understandable terms, the Institute prepared a Climate 101 “cheat sheet” and video that defined the issues and answered some fundamental questions.

The Institute and the U.S. Chamber have been and will remain active in the climate change debate clearly outlining a position in support of practical legislation that won’t harm the U.S. economy and an achievable, common sense international agreement. We find ourselves in sync with mainstream Americans and with a growing number of policymakers, particularly in the Senate.

In September, the Institute hosted the first meeting of the Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change. We convened business organization leaders representing over 25 million businesses on six continents to share ideas and discuss areas of common ground as well as differences in preparation for Copenhagen. At the end of the summit, the group agreed on a joint declaration that gave a clearer understanding of the priorities for the business community and where it is united on climate solutions.

Just a short time ago, the Institute released a new report outlining our insights on an international agreement and discussing the scope of global climate change challenges. Our Vice President for Climate and Technology, Steve Eule, is representing the Chamber in Copenhagen and, along with Karen Harbert, has been a sought after voice among media covering the negotiations. The Institute will continue to be engaged in the international arena, as we promote technology and policy solutions to global climate challenges.

Next year is shaping up to be busier than 2009. The Institute has broadened its reach across the country and attracted thousands of new supporters, and we will be fully engaging them in the coming months. Another ambitious travel schedule is taking shape, as we continue to take our message to governors, legislators, chambers of commerce, and business leaders across the country. We will release up to the minute policy analysis and innovative policy recommendations to address our nation’s energy challenges and make significant contributions to the policy debate. We will host a number of fascinating events here and outside of Washington to increase the voices of Americans on these serious deliberations.

We hope that you enjoy the holiday season and urge you to stay tuned and get involved in 2010.

View from the States--Minnesota

Cap-and-trade demands international solution
By David C. Olson

Clean air and a sound environment are vital to all Minnesotans and especially to the business community. Our greatest challenge is to accomplish this without slowing the development of our economy and job growth. Of particular concern is any initiative which puts Minnesota businesses at an economic disadvantage with their competitors in the national and global marketplaces.

That’s why the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and its statewide network of local chamber partners reject any cap-and-trade policy that places Minnesota or the Midwest on an island. We advocate a national policy – but only if it is crafted within the context of an international agreement. That critical element is missing from the current debate in Congress.

David Olson is president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. For more information, visit www.mnchamber.com. The views in this article are his own.

Roundup

As Year Winds Down, So Does Prospects for Climate Legislation: With the Boxer-Kerry bill having been reported out of the House and then placed on ice by Majority Leader Harry Reid, all eyes will be on the emerging trio of Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman who are working on their own legislation that aims to attract more supporters. As we reported last month, the Chamber sent a letter of encouragement to the Senators to propose a more comprehensive and common sense approach and will be actively engaged as their efforts move forward. In the meantime, health care continues to dominate the Senate calendar, and with several other items, including “must-pass” legislation and appropriations bills clogging the agenda, it is quite clear that climate is off the table for the remainder of the year. With 2010 an election year, it remains to be seen exactly when Reid will seek to take it back up.

Institute Meets with Chambers from Across America: One of the ways that the Institute brings its message to Americans across the country is through state and local Chambers of Commerce. Every year, the U.S. Chamber hosts conferences across the country to bring these Chambers together to share best practices and discuss current policy battles. This year, the Institute’s Director of Grassroots and Political Affairs, Nate Bailey, traveled to Chicago and San Francisco to talk energy face-to-face with leaders from more than 100 state and local Chambers. Armed with the Institute’s policy reports and analysis, these Chambers are better informed and equipped to wade into the battle for sound energy policy in their home states and before their states’ Congressional delegations.

Month Ahead

Copenhagen! It is finally here. After years of preparation, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is just about underway, and all eyes will be on the 192 nations participating to see exactly what develops. We at the Institute expect a political agreement that is likely to be similar to President Obama’s call for a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Institute VP for Climate and Technology Steve Eule, who is attending the conference, will be providing regular updates available on our website as well as insights live from Copenhagen at POLITICO’s Arena, and Eule and president Karen Harbert will also appear on various media outlets as voices for the business community in the negotiations.

Politico Op-Ed: Success depends on businesses

12/3/2009

by Karen A. Harbert

The road to Copenhagen has been a long and winding one. As you read this, representatives from more than 190 nations are gathering to work on a new framework to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. But the group that will have the most impact on achieving that goal isn’t sitting behind a dais at Copenhagen’s Bella Center. Instead, its members are on Main Street and Wall Street, from Boston to Beijing. The success or failure of any agreement will rely most heavily on whether businesses, small and large, are able to implement it.

The private sector has the capital, expertise and practical solutions necessary to address climate change. Business has been steadily working at expanding those solutions for many years, by investing in cutting-edge research to develop and use cleaner and more-efficient energy technologies.

As domestic and international negotiations continue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy intends to be a constructive voice in support of a common-sense and achievable international climate agreement. In doing so, we will seek to put all the facts — and the fiction — on the table so that policymakers and the American people can make informed decisions.

Among the most important facts:

Fact: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants an international agreement.

As the largest representative of the U.S. business community in Copenhagen, the Chamber is an advocate for an international agreement and domestic legislation to reduce global emissions. In September, the Chamber’s energy institute hosted a summit of global business leaders and joined the group in declaring that “the business community stands ready to continue engagement with policymakers and continue investments that contribute to low-carbon and energy-efficient economies.” The involvement of the business community in United Nations climate negotiations can only lead to a more successful and realistic agreement.

Fact: The developing world will produce the vast majority of emissions in the next century.

Even if developed countries deliver steep cuts in emissions, absent meaningful commitments by developing countries, it will be nearly impossible to achieve significant reductions in global emissions. Around 80 percent to 90 percent of the expected growth in global carbon dioxide emissions is expected to occur in developing countries — especially China, India and parts of Southeast Asia — so they have to be an integral part of any agreement.

Fact: Free trade of energy goods and services will accelerate the transition to a lower-carbon future.

Some in the United States and elsewhere have been pushing for border tariffs that would increase the cost of goods from countries that have not adopted aggressive restrictions on emissions. The international climate negotiations should not be used as a vehicle to erect counterproductive barriers to free trade. Instead of flirting with a green trade war, we should be eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers for clean energy goods and services to accelerate use of the latest technology worldwide.

Fact: Without protection of intellectual property rights, companies won’t invest in clean energy.

Weakening intellectual property rights would have a devastating effect on the long-term development of clean energy technology. Without intellectual property rights, there is little incentive for companies to invest in advanced technologies. No company would commit to investing tens of millions of dollars to develop the next great clean energy technology if it feared that this technology would be copied and manufactured at a reduced cost in the developing world.

Fact: Addressing climate change will take time and be costly.

Too often, interested parties choose to manipulate numbers and ignore the economic realities of addressing climate change. For instance, during the debate over the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the United States, proponents insisted that the bill would cost only “a postage stamp a day.” What they failed to mention is that their calculation covered only the initial years, when the government would make free allocations available, not the years after 2025, when costs are estimated to balloon. It is that kind of political gamesmanship that is counterproductive to a real climate solution.

Addressing climate change, both at home and abroad, is going to be expensive. That’s particularly true when one considers that the developing countries are counting on massive wealth transfers to support their efforts to lower emissions. They’ve demanded 0.5 percent to 2 percent of the developed-country gross domestic product to support climate change programs. In the United States in 2008, that would have represented as much as $290 billion — and that would be on top of the billions required to reduce our own emissions. Before global commitments are made, there must be an honest and thoughtful national discussion about timelines and the cost to the U.S. economy.

Of course, there is plenty of fiction surrounding Copenhagen, as well. Some examples:

Fiction: Reaching an agreement is as easy as agreeing on a target.

If we’ve learned anything from the Kyoto Protocol, it’s that a top-down approach doesn’t work. The focus on an unenforceable and unrealistic long-term target for reducing emissions has created expectations that all parties seem unprepared to fulfill. A new agreement should concentrate on implementing technology solutions. A long-term plan is needed — one that motivates and provides direction for national and regional cooperative activities and ensures the broadest participation, recognizes growing energy needs and does not undermine economic growth. That’s the kind of realistic agenda countries can embrace.

Fiction: We have the technology on hand today to meet emissions reduction goals.

How rapidly advanced energy technologies develop and are adopted commercially will be the most important factor in determining how quickly and at what cost greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced globally. Current technologies and energy efficiency can and will make a significant contribution, but to achieve the scale of the reductions being discussed in the United Nations, we’ll need to develop advanced technologies that can compete with the cost and reliability of current technologies. By reducing the costs associated with reducing emissions, new technologies can expand the range of politically and economically viable policy options.

Fiction: The U.N. Framework Convention is the only body through which countries can reduce emissions.

The action doesn’t begin and end at the United Nations. We believe that there are plenty of things that governments should be doing regardless of the outcomes in Washington and Copenhagen. In fact, the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy presented 88 policy recommendations to President Barack Obama and Congress shortly after last year’s elections. Among them were improving access to financing for clean energy technologies though a government-sponsored clean energy bank, moving quickly to build nuclear plants and improving America’s energy infrastructure to enable it to support new emissions-free power sources. These recommendations, and many others, can form the basis for shorter-term, consensus-based action on climate.

At the end of the day, to achieve measurable results, the U.N. negotiating process could benefit from giving the global business community a greater voice. Governments should recognize and embrace business engagement so that the international process can take better advantage of the range of technical expertise that business can provide. A realistic vision focused on technology deployment that encourages cooperation, not confrontation, would be a good place to start and would help make Copenhagen a success.

Karen A. Harbert is president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Harbert: Realistic Approach that Includes Business Needed for Climate Deal

11/17/2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, today told lawmakers that a realistic approach that recognizes the results of domestic, bilateral and multilateral activities and gives the business community the opportunity to innovate will be needed to reach a global climate deal.

Harbert testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing exploring the international aspects of global climate change. Her testimony was largely based on the findings of a new report the Institute released last week titled “The Prospects for Copenhagen: More Realism Can Smooth the Way.” The report is available at the Institute’s website, www.energyxxi.org

“Trying to get over 190 countries to agree on a new treaty would be tough even in the best of economic circumstances, and these are not the best of economic circumstances,” Harbert said. “Unrealistic expectations and demands about technology readiness and adoption, short-term goals, burden sharing, wealth transfers, and intellectual property have led to finger-pointing, not progress,” she said.

Harbert drew on the lessons of 1997’s Kyoto Protocol, in which the U.S. failed to ratify an international climate agreement after agreeing to targets. She said that this time, a “bottom-up” approach that incorporates sufficient flexibility to permit new ideas to be introduced as they emerge would be the best way forward.

“We need more cooperation and less confrontation. It’s time we moved beyond rhetoric and started looking at practical solutions,” said Harbert. “An agreement focusing on technology offers a path forward that developed and developing countries and the business community can embrace.”

Harbert told the committee that how rapidly advanced energy technologies are developed and adopted commercially will be the most important factor in determining how quickly and at what cost greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. An accelerated program to improve the performance and lower the costs of advanced alternate energy technologies, she noted, could broaden the range of economically and politically viable policy options available to decision makers.

Testimony of Karen Harbert to Senate Energy Committee on International Climate

11/17/2009

Testimony of Karen Harbert, President and CEO
Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
November 17, 2009

Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Committee for holding today’s hearing on the international climate negotiations. I am Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

My testimony today will focus on what I believe are some of the major challenges to a new international agreement and where I believe the business community can play a constructive role.

That is really the theme of the paper the Energy Institute released last week, “The Prospects for Copenhagen: More Realism Can Smooth the Way,” and which I would ask to be entered into the record.

Trying to get over 190 countries to agree on a new treaty would be tough even in the best of economic circumstances, and these are not the best of economic circumstances. It is also important to keep in mind the global context in which these negotiations are occurring. The world has changed considerably since the UNFCCC was launched in 1992 with the vast majority of future energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions coming now from the developing world.

The Energy Institute has cautioned for some time about unrealistic expectations surrounding technology readiness and commercial adoption, short-term commitments by developed countries, burden sharing by developing countries, finance, wealth transfers, technology transfer, and intellectual property. The complexity of these issues has yielded confrontation and finger-pointing, not progress.

I think it would be a mistake to draw from recent developments the conclusion that all would be well if only the U.S. had domestic legislation in hand. These issues go well beyond what we can expect to see addressed in domestic legislation, and they will be no less contentious if we have it. We need to put to rest the idea that if the U.S. goes first, China, India, and other large emerging economies will fall into line with binding commitments of their own, something they remain adamant in opposing. This remains an unjustified article of faith that carries with it considerable risk.

We have seen with the Kyoto Protocol that top-down approaches do not work. A new agreement needs to be a bottom up approach that accommodates a wide range of national circumstances and should be as simple as possible to implement.

Climate change risks need to be addressed as part of an integrated agenda that proceeds from a clear understanding that, for many countries, energy security is still a greater concern than climate change. In reality, affordable energy provides a solution to climate change because it underpins the economic growth necessary to drive technology change and environmental protection.

At its most fundamental level, reducing carbon dioxide emissions from energy is a technology challenge that, as an article in Science once famously noted, “can not be simply regulated away”. It cannot be negotiated away, either.

An agreement that focuses on technology offers a path forward that developed and developing countries can embrace. How rapidly advanced energy technologies develop and are adopted commercially will be the most important factor in determining how quickly and at what cost greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Existing technologies can make an important contribution, but they alone are not capable of significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale at an acceptable cost. New and in some cases revolutionary energy technologies, many still years if not decades over the horizon, will have to be developed and adopted commercially along with the infrastructure to support them.

That is why it is so critical that there not be weakening of intellectual property rights in any agreement which would only serve to stymie the development of the very technologies we need to make progress. With a clear stake in the process, developing country governments can be convinced that intellectual property protections are in their interests as well as ours. Their businesses already know this—from less than 5% of patents in 1998, emerging economies now account for roughly 20% of patents worldwide.

Improving the performance and lowering the costs of advanced alternate energy technologies can, if successful, broaden the range of economically and politically viable policy options available to decision makers. However, in order to have these technologies more quickly penetrate both developed and developing nations’ markets, we should seriously undertake efforts to reduce global tariff and non-tariff barriers on clean energy goods and services.

In addition, to be credible and effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a new arrangement should include realistically ambitious commitments by all countries in keeping with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Large developing economies, like China, India, and Brazil, must be a part of any new international accord for it to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, we believe there needs to be a greater role for the international business community in these negotiations. When all is said and done, it is largely going to fall on the business community to implement whatever is in the treaty. Given the right environment, business is prepared to do what it does best—innovate to find solutions. But we need a seat at the table.

In September, the U.S. Chamber hosted the first meeting of the Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change. Over two days, high-level representatives from 13 business organizations spanning six continents and representing more than 25 million businesses exchanged views, identifying some common ground on many of the issues being considered in the international negotiations. Maybe surprising to policymakers but not to businesses, there was a significant amount of agreement on the importance of practically addressing energy security, finance, technology, and

economic competitiveness issues. I would ask that the formal declaration endorsed by all the business organizations be entered into the record.

Our organizations plan to continue the Major Economies Business Forum and will meet regularly to provide valuable and practical input to the international negotiations. Bottom line - the international business community would welcome more formal roles in both the UN Framework Convention and the Major Economies Forum.

In closing, let me say that business needs a predictable environment in which to operate and plan, and it would welcome an ambitious international climate change agreement. But that ambition needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of pragmatism. A realistic vision focused on technology that encourages cooperation, not confrontation, would be a good place to start.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Energy Institute Calls for Achievable Global Climate Agreement

11/12/2009

For Immediate Release Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

New Report Acknowledges Obstacles; Emphasizes Role of Technology

WASHINGTON, D.C.—When more than 190 nations gather in Copenhagen, Denmark next month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will be among the organizations pushing for a strong international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, a new report issued today by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy details just how challenging the task will be.

The Energy Institute’s report, titled “The Prospects for Copenhagen: More Realism Can Smooth the Way,” sheds light on the unprecedented technology challenge that faces the global community in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. According to the report, how rapidly advanced energy technologies are developed and adopted will be the single most important factor in determining how quickly—and at what cost—greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.

“For businesses to remain competitive, our national leaders must ensure that a new global climate agreement sets realistic goals, recognizes growing energy needs, ensures global participation, promotes technology, encourages trade, and doesn’t weaken intellectual property,” said Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21 Century Energy.

The report explores the areas of discussion among the parties in the negotiations, primarily developed and developing nations. It reviews the scale and scope of rapidly deploying clean energy technology and some of the dynamics that could hinder an agreement. In addition, the paper outlines a technology-centered approach that could form the basis of a binding international agreement that includes developing countries.

“Developing and developed nations still have largely divergent views on technology readiness and commercial adoption, finance and wealth transfers, technology transfer, and burden sharing with developing countries,” Eule said. “With the most contentious issues currently unresolved, leaders should examine a global climate change framework that recognizes national plans to reduce emissions both at home and abroad.”

To be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the paper notes that large developing countries must be part of an international climate accord. With 80% or more of the growth in global emissions in the next four decades expected to come from developing countries, nations like China, India, and Brazil must be a part of any new international accord for it to be credible. The paper also highlights that the negotiations must not be used as an excuse for nations to erect barriers to free and open trade or as a way to gain competitive advantage or redistribute wealth

The report is available on the Institute’s website at http://www.energyxxi.org

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region. Through its Institute for 21st Century Energy, Global Intellectual Property Center, and International Division, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is actively raising awareness of the business community’s views on elements of an international climate change agreement.

South Dakota Argus Leader: Chamber Supports Developing Clean Energy

11/12/2009

Chamber supports developing clean energy

By Dan L. Kirby and Karen A. Harbert

A My Voice column by Zachary Keith in the Oct. 24 Argus Leader unfortunately left the impression that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not support the development of clean-energy technologies. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In fact, the chamber has a strong record of supporting the development of clean-energy sources and recognizes the positive impact they will have on local economies, particularly in states such as South Dakota that have strong potential for renewable energy.

As an example, the chamber was a strong supporter of extending tax credits for wind power for eight years, which passed Congress earlier this year, and currently is advocating for a similar extension for solar power. These tax credits are essential to providing the necessary certainty for investors to get projects up and running. But our support for these technologies goes much farther than that.

At the beginning of the year, the chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy delivered specific recommendations to President Obama and Congress about ways to better develop and deploy clean-energy sources such as wind and solar power. These include new federal programs to promote research and development, creating a Clean Energy Bank to provide capital to clean-energy projects and streamlining the process for siting transmission lines to transmit new electricity sources. While some of our recommendations have seen action, others still need attention.

In addition, Keith mentions the chamber's Campaign for Free Enterprise, which has set a national goal of creating 20 million new jobs. It is the free-enterprise system that creates opportunity, encourages innovation, rewards hard work and promotes growth. Harnessing our natural resources to meet our energy challenges - in South Dakota and across the country - will help us meet that goal and is an example of the innovative spirit that will be needed if we are to meet the needs of the current American work force and replace the jobs lost in the recession.

While developing clean-energy sources will help create jobs, our federal government must be careful not to implement policies that take them away. It is for this reason that we opposed legislation to create a cap-and-trade system that passed the U.S. House of Representatives this summer.

The Waxman-Markey bill, which narrowly passed the House in June and was opposed by Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, would cause more than 8,000 South Dakotans to lose their jobs, according to a study by the American Council for Capital Formation. It would reduce South Dakota's gross domestic product by up to $158 million a year by 2020 and up to $1.3 billion by 2030. Most of these economic hardships would be caused by a spike in electricity prices, which are projected to increase by up to 64 percent.

The Senate is considering a companion bill to Waxman-Markey known as the Kerry-Boxer bill. It will be critically important for South Dakotans to remain engaged with their senators in the debate over this legislation.

Rather than creating ineffective government mandates that will cost us jobs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports a sound energy policy that will reduce carbon emissions and create jobs.

The Institute for 21st Century Energy will continue to make sound energy policy recommendations and educate lawmakers and the public about our energy future, and the business community will develop the solutions needed to meet our energy challenges and create jobs for the future.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20091112/VOICES05/911120325/Chamber-supports-developing-clean-energy

Additional Facts

MY VOICE
Dan L. Kirby, 63, of Sioux Falls is a businessman and a board member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Karen A. Harbert, 44, of Washington, D.C., is president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Georgia Chamber: Current Energy Legislation Solves No Problems, Creates New Ones

11/9/2009

By George Israel

Quick -- name the nation with the largest energy reserves on earth.

It’s not Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. It’s not Canada, Russia or China, either.

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, it’s the United States.

How is this possible? Much of the credit goes to new technologies that could let America tap energy sources previously thought to be beyond our reach, making energy more affordable and reducing our dependence on foreign supplies.

It’s a testament to American innovation -- a solution that offers real hope of meeting our nation’s future energy needs.

It’s also the antithesis of the approach championed by Congressional leaders in a pair of bills that would be disastrous for Georgia and the United States.

Exhibit A, the artfully-named American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed the House in June by the barest of margins. Its counterpart, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, was unveiled last month in the Senate.

Both would force dramatic reductions in carbon emissions through a “cap-and-trade” system, require greater use of renewable energy sources and impose tight new energy efficiency standards.

Supporters claim the legislation will promote environmentally-friendly policies, create thousands of “green jobs” and boost the economy.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

If enacted, these bills would cut Georgia’s gross domestic product by more than $9 billion, reduce personal income in the state by over $3 billion, add tens of millions of dollars to state and local budget deficits, kill nearly 40,000 Georgia jobs, and raise household energy costs by hundreds or thousands of dollars a year, according to published estimates.

Every U.S. state could expect similar results.

And what would America gain in exchange for this devastating blow to our economy? Not much, experts say. Global temperatures would fall only a fraction of a degree, and domestic CO2 emissions would drop by a mere 4 percent.

Clearly, Congress has yet to learn the meaning of the phrase “cost-benefit analysis.”

Allow us to offer ours. As the voice of Georgia’s business community at the state capitol and in Washington, D.C., the Georgia Chamber of Commerce has long promoted stewardship of the environment as a means to improve, not destroy, economic prosperity.

Georgia relies on coal for more than 55 percent of our power generation. These proposals would compel our energy providers to either retrofit their existing facilities or purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions. The extraordinary costs of either option would be passed to businesses and consumers.

Another flaw: In mandating greater use of renewable energy, the legislation gives preferential treatment to areas of the country with abundant supplies of specific renewable sources (wind, hydroelectric, etc.) Georgia, like many states, has limited access to those sources. We lead the nation in the development of other renewables -- particularly biomass and biofuel -- but those sources aren’t considered renewable under the legislation.

Meanwhile, China and India -- America’s main competitors in international trade -- have indicated they will not enact similar restrictions. That gives them a distinct advantage over the United States and would make U.S. goods -- many of which pass through Georgia ports -- far less competitive on the global market. It would also accelerate American manufacturers’ flight overseas.

Throw in carbon tariffs on imported goods, and you’ve got the makings of an all-out trade war.

Instead of forcing our nation to accept a “solution” that solves no problems and creates many more, Congress should incentivize the development of both conventional and renewable sources, with realistic compliance timelines that will help reduce emissions without enormous costs.

This legislation doesn’t fit the bill.

George Israel is President and CEO of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

November 2009 Newsletter

11/9/2009


John Watson, incoming president and CEO of Chevron, was the featured guest at the National Chamber Foundation’s CEO Leadership Series Luncheon. The event was co-sponsored by the Energy Institute.	Karen Harbert recently spoke to the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce about America’s and Utah’s growing energy challenges. She is pictured conducting an online interview with Utahpulse.com.

Institute Fighting for New Electricity Infrastructure

Too often, energy policy gets lost in partisan political battles, with facts and common sense taking a back seat. The Institute for 21st Century Energy rejects that approach, and instead focuses on intelligent, civil dialogue to bring about consensus.

One of the issues that we’ve focused on that should unite industry and the environmental community is improving our energy infrastructure. Whether generated by wind, solar, electricity, or nuclear, it is abundantly clear that America does not have the transmission capacity to support new sources of electricity. That’s why we’ve been strong advocates of a streamlined process to site and build transmission lines.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is almost impossible to build a new interstate transmission line. The process is such that numerous roadblocks can be set up, at the state, local, and even federal levels. In the past, we’ve seen state agencies simply delay making a decision on a proposed transmission line for so long that developers are forced to give up and cancel the projects in order to free up capital for other projects.

While these state agencies may think they are helping various citizen groups that don’t want power lines nearby, in reality all they are doing is making America less secure by threatening our energy supply. No nation can thrive economically without having a reliable and secure electricity supply.

In 2005, with the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Congress stepped in and created a new provision designed to make it easier to build new transmission lines. The provision provided the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the opportunity to step in and authorize construction of a transmission line if the state has withheld approval of the application for more than one year, or otherwise attached onerous conditions. The provision applies if the line is located in a region of the country with high transmission congestion, as designated by the Department of Energy. The two regions of the country that were designated as such (called National Interest Electricity Corridors) were the Mid-Atlantic and the Southwest.

The logic behind the provision was simple—transmission lines frequently run through multiple states and address a federal need—much like highways. This sensible provision won bipartisan support in Congress and became law.

Unfortunately, its implementation was promptly challenged by an environmental group called the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). Now, one might think that a group like PEC would support such a provision, since it will make it much easier for renewable energy technologies like wind and solar to be built and utilized. However, PEC’s interest appears to rest solely on the NIMBY movement that opposes building power lines essentially anywhere in Northern Virginia. PEC’s lawsuit stopping the new provision was successful in a federal appeals court, putting the brakes on building new transmission.

Enter the Chamber’s Energy Institute and the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC). With the policy support of the Institute, NCLC filed an amicus brief in support of a petition by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the case. At this time, neither the Obama Administration nor FERC have taken steps to defend the law, prompting Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing investor-owned electric utilities, to take action.

Without federal preemptive authority, business as usual will continue and very few, if any, interstate transmission lines will be built. Without new lines, it will impossible to expand power , including renewables, in the United States sufficient to meet demand as well as the goals outlined by President Obama. For instance, most of our wind and solar resources are located hundreds of miles away from population centers that actually need the power—requiring new transmission lines. Of course, renewable are not the only energy source in doubt. An expansion of nuclear power, which will be needed to meet the Administration’s aggressive climate change goals, will also demand new transmission capacity.

The Institute and the Chamber will continue to fight for the transmission capacity necessary to power America in the 21st Century. Stay tuned for updates regarding litigation.

View from the States: Georgia

Current Energy Legislation Solves No Problems, Creates New Ones
By George Israel

Quick -- name the nation with the largest energy reserves on earth.

It’s not Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. It’s not Canada, Russia or China, either.

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, it’s the United States.

How is this possible? Much of the credit goes to new technologies that could let America tap energy sources previously thought to be beyond our reach, making energy more affordable and reducing our dependence on foreign supplies.

It’s a testament to American innovation -- a solution that offers real hope of meeting our nation’s future energy needs.

It’s also the antithesis of the approach championed by Congressional leaders in a pair of bills that would be disastrous for Georgia and the United States.

Exhibit A, the artfully-named American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed the House in June by the barest of margins. Its counterpart, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, was unveiled last month in the Senate.

Both would force dramatic reductions in carbon emissions through a “cap-and-trade” system, require greater use of renewable energy sources and impose tight new energy efficiency standards.

Supporters claim the legislation will promote environmentally-friendly policies, create thousands of “green jobs” and boost the economy.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

If enacted, these bills would cut Georgia’s gross domestic product by more than $9 billion, reduce personal income in the state by over $3 billion, add tens of millions of dollars to state and local budget deficits, kill nearly 40,000 Georgia jobs, and raise household energy costs by hundreds or thousands of dollars a year, according to published estimates.

Every U.S. state could expect similar results.

And what would America gain in exchange for this devastating blow to our economy? Not much, experts say. Global temperatures would fall only a fraction of a degree, and domestic CO2 emissions would drop by a mere 4 percent.

Clearly, Congress has yet to learn the meaning of the phrase “cost-benefit analysis.”

Allow us to offer ours. As the voice of Georgia’s business community at the state capitol and in Washington, D.C., the Georgia Chamber of Commerce has long promoted stewardship of the environment as a means to improve, not destroy, economic prosperity.

Georgia relies on coal for more than 55 percent of our power generation. These proposals would compel our energy providers to either retrofit their existing facilities or purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions. The extraordinary costs of either option would be passed to businesses and consumers.

Another flaw: In mandating greater use of renewable energy, the legislation gives preferential treatment to areas of the country with abundant supplies of specific renewable sources (wind, hydroelectric, etc.) Georgia, like many states, has limited access to those sources. We lead the nation in the development of other renewables -- particularly biomass and biofuel -- but those sources aren’t considered renewable under the legislation.

Meanwhile, China and India -- America’s main competitors in international trade -- have indicated they will not enact similar restrictions. That gives them a distinct advantage over the United States and would make U.S. goods -- many of which pass through Georgia ports -- far less competitive on the global market. It would also accelerate American manufacturers’ flight overseas.

Throw in carbon tariffs on imported goods, and you’ve got the makings of an all-out trade war.

Instead of forcing our nation to accept a “solution” that solves no problems and creates many more, Congress should incentivize the development of both conventional and renewable sources, with realistic compliance timelines that will help reduce emissions without enormous costs.

This legislation doesn’t fit the bill.

George Israel is President and CEO of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

Roundup

Energy Institute and Foreign Policy Magazine Host Dialogue on Energy Security: The Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy and Foreign Policy Magazine co-hosted a dialogue on energy security centered around the magazine’s September-October issue titled “Oil: The Long Goodbye.” The dialogue featured a lively panel discussion that displayed quite a bit of consensus on how to address the challenges facing us—including the realization that oil will not be saying “goodbye” for the foreseeable future. Panelists included the Institute’s Karen Harbert, Susan Glasser, executive editor of Foreign Policy, Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Michael Grumwald of Time Magazine, and Kate Gordon from the Center for American Progress.

Eule and Harbert Make European Swing: With the Copenhagen climate talks fast approaching, preparations are reaching a fevered pitch. The Institute’s vice president for climate and technology, Stephen Eule, traveled to Europe for a series of climate change-related discussions in advance of next month’s meetings. Eule attended a meeting at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris to discuss the state of play in the climate negotiations head of Copenhagen, exchange different perspectives on the negotiations, and seek consensus among business groups on key topics. Eule also traveled to Brussels to participate in a meeting sponsored by Business Europe held at the European Commission where he gave a rundown of the situation in the U.S. Finally, Eule delivered an update on the domestic and international climate situation at AmChams representing the EU, France and Belgium.

Eule was not the only Institute official in Europe. President and CEO Karen Harbert traveled to Paris for the second meeting of the International Energy Agency Business Council. Because the private sector is responsible for a large portion of global energy investments, the IEA Energy Business Council – a group of several CEOs from energy producing and consuming companies – participated in the opening sessions of the Ministerial meeting and shared views on the role of public-private partnerships in overcoming global energy challenges. The 27 International Energy Ministers expressed their commitment to develop long-term frameworks, clear and transparent regulation, and to reduce non-financial barriers.

Administration Awards $3.4 Billion for Energy Grid Modernization: In a move praised by the Chamber, the Obama Administration announced that it had awarded $3.4 billion in grants to fund energy grid modernization (known as smart grid.) The Institute recommended rapid deployment of smart grid technology in its recommendations delivered to President Obama and Congress shortly after the elections a year ago. While smart grid will help improve the efficiency and reliability of our nation’s electricity network, fundamental capacity problems still remain. It is still necessary to build new transmission capacity which is currently being delayed (as outlined in this issue’s lead story). As Karen Harbert noted, “without additional transmission capacity, our grid will not be able to meet increased demands, no matter how smart it is.”

Harbert Addresses Energy and Climate at Georgia Governor’s Business Forum: At the request of Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, Institute president and CEO kicked off a discussion of energy and climate issues at the Georgia Business Summit in Atlanta. The forum was meant to bring Georgia business leaders up to speed on efforts in Washington to address energy and climate change as well as healthcare. Governor Perdue moderated the discussions. Harbert will discuss energy policy with Chris Hobson, Senior Vice President, Southern Company, Jeff Fulp, Plant Manager, ERCO Worldwide and David Newby, Profile Extrusion Company.

EPW Passes Kerry-Boxer Bill Amid Tension: Although committee Republicans boycotted the proceedings over concerns that the EPA has not complete analysis of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) nevertheless scheduled a vote on the bill, which passed 11-1 (Senator Max Baucus of Montana was the only Democrat to oppose it). While that was occurring, Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-D-Conn.) announced their own effort to draft a new bill that would better reflect concerns that many moderate Democrats as well as the business community have expressed. The framework for the bill was outlined in a piece written by Kerry and Graham wthat was published in the New York Times . The U.S. Chamber has expressed optimism about the principles outlined by Kerry and Graham, calling it “positive, practical and realistic framework for an agreement.”

U.S. Chamber Welcomes Investment in Smart Grid Technology

10/27/2009

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, today issued the following statement regarding the administration’s announcement that they will award $3.4 billion to help fund energy grid modernization.

“Reliable electricity is essential to a sound economy, and smart grid technology will make our system more reliable. Smart grid technology will allow our systems to self-diagnose and repair problems, accommodate new demands, and promote greater efficiency.

“Today’s announcement is long overdue. The U.S. Chamber’s Energy Institute has been advocating for a rapid deployment of smart grid for over a year, and it was included in our recommendations delivered to President-elect Obama and the 111th Congress last January. Although government alone is not the answer to solving our energy problems, we welcome this investment and look forward to it paying dividends in the future.

“Finally, it is important to remember that smart grid by itself won’t solve our electricity challenges. Today’s announcement does not address the siting and permitting issues that have delayed or even scuttled dozens of clean energy projects, as well as the necessary construction of transmission lines to support these sources. Without additional transmission capacity, our grid will not be able to meet increased demands, no matter how smart it is.”

The mission of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy is to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind a common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. Through policy development, education, and advocacy, the Institute is building support for meaningful action at the local, state, national, and international levels.

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

www.uschamber.com # # # www.chamberpost.com

October 2009 Newsletter

10/8/2009


U.S. Chamber president and CEO Thomas J. Donohue addresses delegates at the Major Economies Business Forum	Energy Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert discussed Ohio’s energy future at the Columbus Metropolitan Club

Spotlight on the Road to Copenhagen

While the U.S. Senate has been preoccupied with health care reform since returning from recess, December’s U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen has ensured that climate change has never been far from the spotlight. Nowhere has that been more evident than at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

On September 21-22, the Institute hosted top executives from over a dozen international business organizations for the first Major Economies Business Forum (MEBF) on Energy Security and Climate Change. More than 25 million businesses worldwide were represented at the MEBF, whose participants came from as far as Australia, India and Japan. In addition to four in-depth focus sessions on topics such as the business community’s role in the U.N. negotiating process, technology and intellectual property rights, and finance, delegates heard from Governor Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) as well as U.S. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue.

At the end of the Forum, delegates issued a joint declaration on areas of agreement among the business community worldwide on economic development, energy security and efficiency, technology, finance, and adaptation. The declaration stated that “the business community stands ready to continue engagement with policymakers and continue investments that contribute to low-carbon and energy-efficient economies.” To read the joint declaration in its entirety, visit www.energyxxi.org/international.

The conclusion of the Forum came just after the government’s Major Economies Forum met and as President Obama addressed the United Nations. With the number of negotiating days before Copenhagen rapidly dwindling, concrete action at the U.N. Climate Conference seems less and less likely. The Institute will remain engaged in the upcoming negotiating sessions in Bangkok (occurring now) and Barcelona. In addition, look for a new policy paper outlining the Institute’s observations and recommendations for the UN climate change conference this month.

On the domestic front, it has become clear that the intensity and complexity of the health care debate will impact consideration of climate change legislation. Nevertheless, Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) unveiled their own bill at the end of September. While the Institute is still analyzing the bill at press time, it is similar to the Waxman-Markey House bill, with the notable exception that the Boxer-Kerry bill has an even more ambitious emissions reduction target (20 percent by 2030 as opposed to 17 percent). On the positive side, unlike the Waxman-Markey bill, the Senate bill contains a nuclear energy title and a provision for nuclear waste research programs. Both are important provisions since the government’s Energy Information Administration estimates 96 new nuclear power plants will need to be built by 2030 to keep the costs of addressing climate change manageable. Given the reaction of many Senators from both parties to Waxman-Markey, the Boxer-Kerry bill’s viability would seem tenuous, at least as written.

Finally, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Thomas Donohue issued a statement outlining the Chamber’s position on climate change. Donohue reiterated the Chamber’s support for domestic legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and noted the Chamber’s long record of supporting policies that promote renewable energy technology. He highlighted that the Chamber opposes the Waxman-Markey legislation because it would cost America jobs while having little impact on emissions.

View from the States: Ohio

Energy Impacts and Opportunities for Ohio
by Andrew Doehrel
President and CEO, Ohio Chamber of Commerce

As the debate on energy and climate rages in Washington, it is states like Ohio that are watching most closely – and for good reason: the impacts would be the most dramatic in states like ours.

Manufacturing accounts for nearly 20 percent of Ohio’s gross domestic product and represents one of the largest employment sectors in the state. Our industrial energy consumption ranks among the highest in the nation because of energy-intensive industries such as chemicals, glass, metal casting and steel production.

Couple that with the fact approximately 90 percent of Ohio’s electricity is generated by coal, compared to 50 percent nationwide and 40 percent worldwide, it is easy to see why the Ohio Chamber of Commerce has such a significant interest in any legislation that will impact both the suppliers and consumers of electricity.

A reliable and affordable source of energy is vital to Ohio’s economy. The reality is that developing a comprehensive energy policy requires the use of existing, traditional electricity supplies while we continue to develop clean coal technology as well as alternative sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. Ohio, and many of our Midwestern neighbors, won’t simply be able to stop using coal, oil or gas tomorrow. Meeting future electricity demand and needs will require a broad mix of sources – including some we may not even be able to imagine today.

As we look at increasing the use of alternative energy, Ohio’s manufacturers have an opportunity to be the source for components of wind turbines, solar cells, fuel cells, and advanced biofuels development. These kinds of projects would bring investment to our state and provide good, high-paying jobs for our residents. In addition, Ohio is continuing to lead the way with advanced nuclear and clean coal technologies.

However, to realize the full potential of these kinds of projects, we must provide incentives that will spur innovation and promote the research and development of alternative energy sources. It is equally important that we develop a regulatory climate that encourages the deployment and use of new energy sources as they become available. New technologies will be the best and most effective catalyst for changes in our energy mix and the protection of our environment.

Ohioans, like all Americans, look forward to a future when cleaner, affordable, reliable energy is powering America. With sound policy decisions and smart investments in technology research and investment, we can reach that day where we grow our economy and protect our environment in tandem. Ohio’s businesses stand ready to lead the charge in that effort.

Roundup

Harbert Brings Institute’s Message to Columbus: In a keynote address to the Columbus Metropolitan Club, Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert outlined the energy realities and opportunities facing Ohio and the nation. That includes the Waxman-Markey bill, which one study shows would cost Ohio 108,000 jobs and raise electricity prices by up to 60 percent.

Harbert highlighted that Ohioans and other Americans are concerned about their jobs, their family budgets, and their future. She noted that “While we all want to return to a healthy economy, our long-term recovery will depend on a very important ingredient – affordable and reliable energy.” Harbert outlined positive steps that can be taken to reduce emissions without harming the economy, including increasing energy efficiency, improving our financial infrastructure, using more alternative energy sources and nuclear power, and eliminating obstacles to the construction of clean energy projects, which she referred to as “green tape.”

Institute Joins Call for Yucca License Application Funding: The Institute for 21st Century Energy was one of over a dozen organizations to call on Energy Secretary Steven Chu to commit to funding for the Yucca Mountain license application in the FY2011 appropriations process. The Institute joined U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council and other groups in sending a letter to the Secretary expressing concern over reports that the government plans to terminate the Yucca Mountain license application without having an alternative plan in place. Withdrawing the license application will result in a full-breach-of-contract with respect to the government’s failure to meet its legal obligations to collect spent nuclear fuel. Regardless of the Administration’s long term intentions on Yucca, the Institute has called for a long-term strategy for safe nuclear waste and used fuel disposal as well as continuing the licensing process, which will allow the Department to gain valuable insight for subsequent repository license applications.
EPA Moves to Regulate Stationary Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Following rules to regulate emissions from cars and trucks expected to take effect next year, the Environmental Protection Administration has now issued a proposed rule which would regulate emissions from stationary sources such as power plants. The rule would apply to facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. The Energy Institute has repeatedly stated that the Clean Air Act is not the correct way to reduce carbon emissions, since it was never intended to do so and issuing such regulations could have a devastating impact on the economy.

The Month Ahead

IEA Business Council Meeting in Paris on World Energy Outlook: The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Energy Business Council will hold its second meeting October 14 in Paris structured around the main findings of the World Energy Outlook 2009, which will be released in November that will include a discussion of meeting energy challenges through public-private partnerships Institute president and CEO Karen Harbert—a former vice chair of IEA—will be participating in a discussion with Energy Ministers in 28 member countries, including China, India, and Russia and CEOs of energy producing and consuming companies This follows her participation in the inaugural meeting of the IEA Business Council in February. This year marks the 35th anniversary of IEA. More information on the event is available here.

Global Business Community Continues Preparation for Copenhagen: Following the successful Major Economies Business Forum held at the chamber, the Institute’s Vice President for Climate and Technology, Stephen Eule, will represent the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at two meetings this month in preparation for December’s U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen. Eule will attend the “BusinessPrepComm for COP15” on October 23 hosted by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, and then travel to Brussels on the 28th to speak on a panel about the global views on climate change sponsored by BusinessEurope. At the meetings, Eule will receive updates about the current state of negotiations and discuss the global business community’s strategy as it seeks a more formal role in the process.

Energy Impacts and Opportunities for Ohio

10/4/2009

by Andrew Doehrel
President and CEO, Ohio Chamber of Commerce

As the debate on energy and climate rages in Washington, it is states like Ohio that are watching most closely – and for good reason: the impacts would be the most dramatic in states like ours.

Andrew Doehrel is the President of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Scripps Howard: Global Business Leaders Support Private-Sector Influence in Energy, Climate Change

9/23/2009

By Emily Mullin -

International business leaders from some of the world's major economies called for a common-sense energy and climate policy at a two-day forum that concluded Tuesday.
Washington, D.C. - infoZine - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - In anticipation of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, delegates from six continents met to discuss the private sector's role in negotiating an international energy and climate change agreement.

"There's one thing that ties us together," U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chief Operating Officer David Chavern said at the chamber's Major Economies Business Forum on Energy and Climate Change. "As businesses, we're looking for practical solutions."

Chavern said that energy security and the environment are interconnected and that "climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution."

Those solutions, outlined Tuesday in a joint agreement among 10 countries represented, include removing international trade barriers, protecting intellectual property rights and encouraging governments to make greater financial commitments to new energy technology. Business leaders agreed that an international climate change agreement should protect the environment and ensure energy security but should not hinder economic growth.

"We commit to exercising a leadership role on tackling climate change and contributing to a new international agreement in Copenhagen," the statement said.

As estimated by the Energy Information Administration, global energy demand will increase by nearly 50 percent by 2030. Much of that increase will come from developing countries that do not currently have access to reliable energy.

"An international agreement on climate change will require not only the cooperation of the developed and developing world but also the full-scale engagement of the global business community," Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Technology, said Tuesday.

Brazilian representative Augusto Jucá, executive manager of the National Confederation of Industry Brazil, said one of the Brazilian government's main concerns is social equity. Many people, especially those in the Amazon region, do not have access to dependable energy sources. Jucá said the Brazilian population is expected to grow by about 4 million people by 2030, or about 2 percent, which will undoubtedly create energy security problems.

"We are much concerned about our energy future," Jucá said.

Greg Evans, director of economics at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said Australia has a high stake in international energy policy because the country is a main exporter of coal and natural gas.

"If we act and other countries don't act, it will be to our economic disadvantage," Evans said.

Canada is also a major exporter of energy resources to countries such as the United States.

"We're strongly committed to a global deal," Canadian Council of Chief Executives President Thomas d'Aquino said. The Canadian representative said he would favor a regional energy policy agreement with the United States and Mexico.

Folker Franz, senior adviser of BusinessEurope, a federation of European businesses, said an international agreement is crucial because Europe faces "some of the highest energy crises in the world."

Some at the conference said they favor an international cap-and-trade agreement, a measure that would attempt to control the amount of pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions by offering tax breaks and other economic incentives.

Ole Krog, deputy director general of the Confederation of Danish Industry, said he would support an international agreement that would include a global cap-and-trade policy, an approach the European Union adopted in 2005.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said he favors building new nuclear power plants, instead of a cap-and-trade solution, to solve the nation's energy problem. Alexander, a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said a transition to electric-powered cars would decrease the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Alexander said the United States is lagging behind other countries, including China and France, in nuclear technology.

"Nuclear energy in America lacks two words: presidential leadership," he said in his address Monday.

His plan includes building 100 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years.

"We could create twice as many green jobs by building 100 new reactors as we could be building 186,000 wind turbines," he said, referring to President Barack Obama's energy plan.

Alexander said he opposes a cap and-trade-bill because it would likely raise the price of fuel and not significantly lower carbon emissions.

U.S. Chamber Energy Expert Addresses Ohio's Energy Realities

9/23/2009

Warns of Higher Energy Prices and Job Losses if Cap and Trade Bill Passes

COLUMBUS, OH — The president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy today warned that more than 100,000 Ohioans stand to lose their jobs if the Senate passes cap and trade legislation that has already cleared the U.S. House.

Addressing the Columbus Metropolitan Club today, Karen Harbert outlined the energy realities and opportunities facing Ohio and the nation. Harbert cited a study by the National Association of Manufacturers and American Council for Capital Formation that reveals that Ohio will lose 108,000 jobs and that state electricity prices will rise by up to 60 percent if the House climate bill becomes law.

“Ohioans and other Americans are concerned about their jobs, their family budgets, and their future,” Harbert said. “While we all want to return to a healthy economy, our long-term recovery will depend on a very important ingredient – affordable and reliable energy. Let us not forget that energy was the key to our nation’s economic growth in the 20th century, propelling us to an industrial and economic superpower, and it will be the key to our economic rebound in the 21st century.”

While the House bill is not the answer, Harbert argued that there are other, better ways to tackle climate change, lower energy prices, grow the economy, and develop cleaner technologies.

“There must be greater efforts to increase our energy efficiency and improve our financial infrastructure so that new clean energy technologies can be put into the marketplace,” Harbert said. “We must double funding for clean energy research and development and increase the use of renewable energy technologies. At the same time, we need to acknowledge the important role that conventional and fossil fuels will continue to play over the next several decades and expand domestic oil and natural gas.”

Harbert also advocated for an expansion of clean, emissions-free nuclear power, which currently accounts for only 20 percent of America’s electricity. While there are currently over two dozen applications to build new plants filed with the government, America has not licensed a new plant for construction in over 30 years, in part because of excessive “green tape” that makes it difficult for energy projects of all kinds to move forward.

“Energy projects once had to contend with red tape; today they have to contend with green tape—the frequent abuse of environmental and siting regulations in order to delay, disrupt and destroy needed energy projects,” Harbert said. “We have to restore some sanity to the regulatory process, and reform
laws that are being abused by individuals and groups to bring needless and endless delays to important energy projects.”

Finally, Harbert called for a renewed emphasis on training young people in engineering and math skills.

“We will not be competitive in the 21st century without the people to innovate and discover that next technology or new source of energy,” Harbert said. While we worry a lot about importing oil these days, I worry about importing our intellectual capital in the future. In my view, this could perhaps be one of the largest challenges to our nation over time.”

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

www.uschamber.com # # # www.energyxxi.org

President and CEO Karen Harbert on Ohio's Energy Future-Columbus Metropolitan Club

9/23/2009

Thank you all for having me here today. It is great to be here in Columbus.

I’m an honest person and I have to make a confession right off the bat…although I have great admiration for the Ohio State University, I must confess I’m not a fan. You see I attended Rice University in Houston. Some of you may remember that my beloved Owls traveled here to Columbus many years ago [in 1996] to take on the Buckeyes. The final score was Ohio State, 70; Rice, 7. And we were happy to get the 7. So I am here to seek retribution and I will now turn to my powerpoint presentation complete with 70 really boring slides.

OK now that I have gotten that off my chest…. I know that central Ohio’s success reaches far beyond Buckeye football and the presence of a world class university. You have the Battelle Institute and leading companies which have helped make Columbus an economic foothold for the entire state of Ohio.
I was impressed to learn that Forbes ranked Columbus the #1 most up and coming city in the US last year.

However, a lot has happened in a year’s time and, Ohio has faced its share of challenges in this economic climate -- as have many states and communities around the country.

Ohioans and other Americans are concerned about their jobs, about their family budgets, and about their future.

The Pew Center did a poll in January of this year and asked Americans what were the 20 top issues facing our nation? The economy and jobs took the top slots but you know what took number six? Energy. Yes energy – Americans are very concerned about energy security – from prices at the pump to their monthly electric bill.

We all want to return to a healthy economy as fast as is humanly possible BUT to achieve economic recovery, our economy will depend on a very important ingredient – affordable and reliable energy. Let us not forget that energy was THE key to our nation’s economic growth in the 20th century, propelling to an industrial and economic superpower and it WILL be the key to our economic rebound in the 21st century.

Many of you may be following the debate unfolding in Washington over health care and energy and climate change legislation. I was stunned to read an OPED in today’s Washington Post entitled “Can legislators really read every word of every bill?” The article points out that for a legislator to read the recently passed House climate bill, it would take at least 12 hours. It highlighted a group asking every member of Congress to read every bill before they vote on it, but the Post concludes “their proposal would bring government to a halt.”

We need our Congress to get back to business and name less post offices and start addressing our nation’s problems. I am sure the framers of our constitution would find it rather unsettling that Congress doesn’t have the time to read the actual bill they will be voting on…

Let talk about energy and climate – right now the debate is framed wrong from the get go – energy versus the environment - we don’t have to choose and I guarantee you others won’t make a choice between energy and the environment. It’s false choice.

Our goal at the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is to recommend policies that ensure the availability of reliable energy, stimulate economic growth, and emphasize environmental progress. It has been said that a “goal without a plan, is just a wish.” So our efforts have been focused on developing and promoting such a plan.

Why is this so important? Because the United States, and the world as a whole, are going to need a lot more energy.

So let’s burden ourselves with some knowledge.

The demand for energy in the US is projected to increase by as much as 30 percent between now and 2030, and our electricity use will go up by as much as 20 percent. Global demand for energy could increase by 50 percent over that same time period, with 75 percent of that demand coming from the developing world. China has around 30 million cars on the road today and by 2025 they will have 300 million cars.

India’s demand for oil has grown six fold in the last 20 years. 80 percent of the growth in GHGs will come from the developing world.

Electricity demand is going to go up 100% - imagine that. And still 1.6 billion people don’t have access to modern energy services.

When you think about the fact that 2/3 of the world’s oil reserves are increasingly off limits, either geologically or geopolitically and that state-owned oil companies own between 80-90% of the world’s reserves, you know we have got to get our US act together.

The International Energy Agency estimates that we need to invest $26 trillion by 2030 to meet our growing energy needs. Is this capital going to be available and will we have the type of investment environment conducive to getting these massive projects built and delivering the energy we need in a timeframe that is relevant to fueling a 21st century economy?

We are dealing with a new energy reality. If we are to address these energy needs then we need practical solutions and more – not fewer – options.
I submit that the decisions our nation makes about energy over the next few years, will determine our future for the next few decades.

Clearly, we face some significant challenges when it comes to energy. But I believe in these challenges lies real opportunity.

With the entire world calling on the US for leadership, if we were to act smartly on energy and climate we could demonstrate to the world how to create a vibrant economy and preserve the environment.

Unfortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives fell short of this mark when it passed energy and climate change legislation in June.

Instead of seizing this opportunity to put America on solid footing both economically and environmentally, they passed a bill (that was 1500 pages) that is so complicated that it requires 400 new regulations and includes 1,060 new federal mandates.

I am sure for you business owners, more than a thousand new mandates is unappealing to say the least.

First to get a perspective on the bill – its goals are to reduce our GHG emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Practically what does that mean? It means we have to take a GIGATON of CO2 out of our atmosphere by 2020. For those of you who left your pocket calculators at home, a gigaton of CO2 is the equivalent of building 130 new nuclear plants instead of coal plants or 127,500 new wind turbines. This is hard to even imagine especially when we haven’t built a new nuclear plant in over 30 years…and we can’t build a wind farm 14 miles off Nantucket - the human eye can only see 16 miles at best.

When the Congressional Budget Office stated it would only cost a postage stamp a day, it was not only wrong but disingenuous. It was a nice sound bite but really didn’t contribute to an honest and transparent debate on the bill.

And people want facts not rhetoric. Gallup did a poll earlier this year which showed that 41 percent of Americans don’t trust the information they are receiving on climate change issues.

So the Energy Institute wanted to do our own analysis of the bill that takes into account not the world as we want it to be, but the world as it is. And most importantly, we wanted this analysis to show how this legislation is going to impact you. Your pocketbooks. Your prices. Your prosperity.

What we found is a cause for real concern.

Our analysis found that the House legislation will reduce economic growth by $1.3 trillion dollars from 2012 through 2030 – which is nearly 50 percent greater than some projections.

We found that the House legislation will have a devastating impact on jobs, costing the American economy nearly one million jobs, including 440,000 manufacturing jobs, double what the US government estimated.

We found that the House bill will increase electricity prices by 36 percent over the next twenty years.

And we found that the House bill will cost the average American household roughly $520 per year.

There is no question that this legislation would hurt at the national level – but it would be particularly disruptive to states like Ohio.

A recent study examined the impact that the House legislation would have on individual states. The news for Ohio was grim.

The legislation would increase electricity prices for Ohio households and businesses by up to 60 percent.

It would shrink the disposable income of Ohio families by as much as $1,400 per year, and could reduce Ohio’s gross state product by as much as $18.9 billion dollars by the year 2030.

Most concerning, it could cost Ohio as many as 108,000 jobs over the next twenty years.

I would suggest to you that your elected officials should be looking at ways to lower energy prices, not increase them; expand your buying power, not shrink it; grow the economy, not contract it; and create jobs, not destroy them.

But the good news is that all of these goals are possible – provided we take a comprehensive and practical approach. At the Energy Institute, we have laid out such a plan to the new President and Congress earlier this year and let me lay out a few of the important components that we believe must be addressed:

First, there must be greater efforts to increase our energy efficiency in our homes and in our businesses. The greatest source of energy available is the energy we waste everyday. The United States uses 50 percent less energy to produce a dollar of GDP than we did thirty years ago but we can do more.

But 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption comes from residential and commercial buildings. So we need the federal government to work with states
to make it profitable for utilities to sell less power and for home builders to invest in energy efficiency measures rather than building that bonus room.

Second, we need to get new clean technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace and that means working with the capital markets to attract new financing.

At the Energy Institute, we are encouraging new financing options through a new Clean Energy Bank of the U.S. to accelerate the development of clean energy technologies and projects. And to ensure that taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook, the bank would be financed through its own operations, rather than by taxpayer dollars.

And after this Clean Energy Bank is up and running, it should take control of the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program. Why do we think that’s important? Well, one reason lies just sixty miles south of here -- the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon.
I’m sure many of you are familiar with it. It is owned by an American company trying to deploy American technology that would improve our energy security and our national security – not to mention improve the economic security of a region that desperately needs it.

But instead of getting the support it needs from the federal government, this project has seen its promised loan guarantees bogged down in a ridiculous political and regulatory morass. As a result, hundreds of jobs are at stake. It’s time to take the politics out of this process and put the Loan Guarantee Program under a more permanent and stable financing platform.

Third, we need to double funding for clean energy research and development and increase the use of renewable energy technologies. Up until the stimulus bill we were investing less in clean energy R&D than after the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s.

But government can’t and won’t provide all the breakthroughs so we should give business a permanent go ahead to innovate by making the research and development tax credit permanent. Then, the companies here in Ohio would have additional incentive to create America’s energy future.

Right now solar and wind account for 1.3 percent of our electricity mix, and we need them to play a greater role.
Congress has been turning renewable tax incentives off and on like a light switch every year or two.

This uncertainty makes businesses less likely to make critical long-term investments. We should extend all renewable tax credits once and for all for eight years and then phase them out.

That way business has the predictability it needs and government doesn’t end up endlessly subsidizing technologies that can’t compete in the marketplace.

Fourth, we need to acknowledge the important role that conventional and fossil fuels will continue to play over the next several decades and expand domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas.
Ninety-six percent of our transportation sector still relies on oil, and that is not going to change overnight.

For 30 years, 85 percent of America’s oil and natural gas resources have been placed off-limits to exploration. If we are truly interested in lessening our dependence on foreign oil, it is unimaginable that we won’t tap our significant reserves here at home and produce more American energy and create good American jobs.

So the Congress and the Administration need to allow for the increased exploration and production on and off our shores. And I want to stress that this oil and natural gas can be accessed in an environmentally responsible way.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through areas of dense oil and gas production in the Gulf Coast, and the U.S. Coast Guard determined that there were no significant spills to report.

Coal is obviously very important to the state of Ohio and we need to double down on our research and development efforts to demonstrate the technology that will capture and sequester carbon in order to allow us to use the 250 years of coal we have in the United States. If we don’t I guarantee you other nations will be glad to buy it.

Fifth, nuclear power which is emissions free and affordable only accounts for 20 percent of our electricity. We haven’t built a new plant in 30 years. There are over two dozen applications filed with the NRC to build new reactors.
We need to act with alacrity to support the expansion of nuclear power and reestablish the nuclear industry and its jobs in this country.

Sixth, we need to get a handle on a disturbing and growing plague on our nation. There was a time when new energy projects had to contend with NIMBY sentiments, which you might know as Not In My BackYard. NIMBY is a thing of the past and today, we must contend with what we call BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

Energy projects once had to contend with red tape, today they have to contend with green tape – the frequent abuse of environmental and siting regulations in order to delay, disrupt and destroy needed energy projects.

In fact, the U.S. Chamber has just made an inventory of all the energy projects that are being stalled and stopped around the country – right now there are over 400 of them and growing.

We have to restore some sanity to the regulatory process, and streamline and reform laws that are being abused by individuals and groups to bring needless and endless delays to important energy projects.

Last but by no means least, we need to be investing in our intellectual feedstock. As a university town, you can appreciate this. We are graduating fewer and fewer people with technical expertise and engineering and math skills. We will not be a competitive economy in the 21st century without the people to innovate and discover that next technology or new source of energy.

While we worry a lot about importing oil these days, I worry more about importing our intellectual capital in the future. In my view, this could perhaps be one of the largest challenges to our nation over time.

These are just a few examples of the measures being recommended by the Energy Institute. Earlier this year, the Institute unveiled a plan that included more than 80 specific recommendations with timelines for when they should be implemented.

This plan is available at our website at WWW – DOT – ENERGYXXI – DOT ORG. I’d encourage you to take a look.

If the Senate can put together a comprehensive plan that addresses our long-term energy needs, then the U.S. will be on the right path economically and environmentally.

But ultimately, what moves Senate action is the will of the people outside of Washington. And today, I’m asking you – if you aren’t already -- to be involved in this debate. It is going to impact each and every one of you – your home, your business, your future -- so you should have a voice.

I’d encourage you to follow the progress in the Senate as this debate gets under way. Use resources like the Energy Institute’s website to stay abreast of the events in Washington. And tell your Senators, tell your neighbors, tell your Mother and her neighbors that Ohio needs a practical common sense energy bill that will help its economy, not hurt it.

A strong and sound energy policy is still very much a possibility, but it’s going to take the work of the people in this room, and I hope we can count on your support.

Thank you.

E&E News: Business Groups Want Larger Role in U.N. Emission Talks

9/22/2009

Michael Burnham, E&E senior reporter

Business groups from the United States and seven other nations signed a declaration today, vowing to take a leadership role in developing energy-efficient technologies and helping U.N. representatives broker a deal to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.

The declaration, signed at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, does not call for specific targets for emissions reductions or government spending. Rather, it encourages U.N. representatives to sign a climate pact later this year in Copenhagen that promotes economic development and a "level playing field" for industry.

"The agreement should provide a clear framework for international cooperative action in the areas of mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance," the declaration states. "It should be consistent with the scientific understanding of the risks of climate change and based on a long-term shared vision that respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities among all countries."

The business groups from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, India, Japan, Kenya and the United States wrote that they are concerned that some governments are considering imposing unilateral border adjustments on imported goods, which could "invite retaliation" and slow the dissemination of clean-energy technologies.

"It is not simply an American sentiment at this point; everyone is interested in protecting their backyard," said Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, which hosted the gathering.

The chamber staunchly opposed "Buy American" language in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for fear it would spark trade wars. Today's declaration encourages governments to work in the World Trade Organization to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.

"The international climate negotiations should not be used to erect barriers to free and open trade and investment," the declaration states.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (subscription)

Global Business Organizations Call for Greater Role in Climate Negotiations

9/22/2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Leaders of the world’s top business organizations representing five continents and more than 25 million companies today committed to exercising a leadership role in tackling climate change and contributing to a new international climate change agreement in Copenhagen in December.

In a joint statement issued at the conclusion of the two-day Major Economies Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change held at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, business organizations highlighted their willingness to play a constructive role at Copenhagen and beyond. The declaration states that “the business community stands ready to continue engagement with policymakers and continue investments that contribute to low-carbon and energy-efficient economies.”

Business groups from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe, India, Japan, and Kenya as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21 Century Energy and U.S. Council on International Business signed the joint declaration.

“An international agreement on climate change will require not only the cooperation of the developed and developing world, but also the full-scale engagement of the global business community,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “The involvement of the business community in U.N. climate negotiations can only lead to a more successful and realistic agreement, since the private sector already has experience and expertise in developing technologies that reduce emissions.”

The declaration highlighted areas of agreement among the business community worldwide on topics such as economic development, energy security and efficiency, technology, finance, and adaptation.

The leaders agreed that international climate change negotiations should not be used to erect barriers to free and open trade and investment. The declaration notes development of climate-friendly technologies can best progress under policies that promote competition and respect intellectual property rights and that “technology cooperation, public-private partnerships, innovative financing, and capacity building” are all needed to facilitate technology transfer and commerce in developing and developed countries.

Business leaders also called for finance ministries to be more directly involved in climate negotiations. While acknowledging that public financing is critical to making new technology more accessible in developing countries, the leaders point out that “it is no substitute for private sector capital investments,” which depends largely on a nation’s investment environment.

Finally, the group agreed to continue the Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change with future meetings in order to identify areas of shared understanding and provide valuable and practical input to the international negotiations. The full statement is available on the Institute’s website at www.energyxxi.org

The mission of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy is to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind a common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean. Through policy development, education, and advocacy, the Institute is building support for meaningful action at the local, state, national, and international levels.

www.uschamber.com # # # www.energyxxi.org

Governor Manchin, Senator Alexander Address International Business Executives As U.S. Chamber Climate Summit Kicks Off

9/21/2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Remarks today by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin and U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander were among the highlights of the opening session of the Major Economies Business Forum (MEBF) on Energy Security and Climate Change at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Executives representing more than a dozen business organizations from the world’s top economies, who collectively represent more than 25 million businesses worldwide, convened in at the Chamber for a dialogue ahead of the U.N. climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.

“I appreciate the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for inviting me to speak at this very important forum,” said Governor Manchin. “Sustainable energy will continue to be one of world’s most critical areas that we must address by coming together for solutions. West Virginia has always stepped to the forefront to provide the energy that powers the United States, and we are committed to finding more efficient and environmentally responsible ways to continue to provide that energy source in the future.

Senator Alexander highlighted the benefits of emissions-free nuclear power in his remarks. "The truth is that if we want safe, cost-effective, reliable, low-carbon electricity, we can no longer ignore the wisdom of the rest of the world and must invest more in the technology we ourselves invented: nuclear power,” he said.

Earlier, the delegates began their discussion with a focus session on the nexus between energy security, energy efficiency, and climate change in developing and developed countries. Thomas d’Aquino, chief executive and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, served as a scene setter for the discussion, while Jamshvd Godrej, past president of the Confederation of Indian Industries moderated the discussion.

“We have to recognize that for many countries, providing modern energy services to their citizens is as important—if not more so—than reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “An international agreement that fails to recognize the growing need for affordable and reliable energy will not be viable over the long-term.”

Among other topics of discussion Monday were the importance of leveraging public and private sector capital to finance the deployment of clean energy technologies, as well as a discussion on the U.S. perspective on international climate negotiations with Christo Arutsio, deputy director of the Office of Global Change at the U.S. Department of State.

The MEBF continues tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. EDT with remarks by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., the ranking member on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

www.uschamber.com # # # www.energyxxi.org

U.S. Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue-Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change

9/21/2009

Thank you very much, Karen, and good evening everyone.

The U.S. Chamber is very pleased to be hosting this event. I know many of you met at the Confederation of Danish Industry in Copenhagen earlier this year, and we are glad you made the trip to Washington to be with us tonight.

We’re gathering together because of the upcoming global climate change meetings in Copenhagen in December.

Business would welcome an agreement—but, it must be a good agreement. It’s important that we get it right, and we think the Copenhagen meeting will be a positive step forward.

As these negotiations progress, the business groups represented in this room have a special responsibility. Our countries represent about:

• 70% of the world’s economy
• 50% of the world’s energy production
• 70% of the world’s energy consumption
• 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Our countries also have the resources and knowledge base to develop the technologies of the future.

Tonight I’d like to offer some observations on a few topics:

• First, how we can fashion a workable, achievable, commonsense climate change agreement without ruining our economies;
• Second, where things stand in the United States on climate change and energy; and
• Third, how we can make our voices heard in this debate.

Keys to a Successful Climate Change Agreement

Let’s start by facing a fundamental fact. We will not achieve a workable climate change agreement unless the governments and business communities represented here tonight agree on some fundamental principles.

Let me suggest what some of those principles should be.

First, any agreement should ensure global participation. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. As well all know, that’s been easier said than done. Finding consensus among developed and developing nations has proven elusive in the international negotiations.

We need a new approach that can bridge differences between the various stakeholders and that can motivate action.

We need an approach that recognizes and accommodates a wide range of national circumstances that’s as simple as possible to implement. And it should be flexible enough so that new ideas can be introduced as they emerge.

Under such an approach, each nation could design its own strategies that reflect its unique circumstances, such as its stage of economic development, resource mix, and economic needs.

Each nation could decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective.

A flexible agreement would have many advantages. It would preclude the possibility of nations gaming agreements to achieve a competitive advantage.

It would recognize that different countries have different economic needs and circumstances, and different things to contribute to addressing climate change.

And it would allow and encourage innovation, which will be key to mitigating climate change risks.

While our strategies may be different, we share a common responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing.

This leads me to a second principle—whatever we do should not harm our economies or destroy jobs. Our policies must recognize—indeed, embrace—the aspirations of people everywhere for economic growth, abundant and affordable energy, an improved quality of life, and a clean environment.

We should never stand in the way of progress that reduces poverty, measurably improves health and living conditions, and restores human dignity. The fact is, we can’t have healthy environments without first having healthy economies.

A third principle is recognizing the fundamental role technology must play in any solution. It’s the key to tackling climate change. For far too long, there was this view that you could tackle climate change or you could tackle energy security, but you couldn’t do both. Now we know better.

These challenges share a common solution: technology. By developing new low-emission technologies, we can meet the growing demand for energy and at the same time reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Look, we can cut emissions to any level we want using 1950s technology, but that would ruin our already fragile economies. No one wants that.

What we need are new technologies that can keep our economies humming while we cut emissions. That’s the real challenge, for governments and for business.

Indeed, the pace at which we develop and adopt advanced technologies will be the single most important factor determining how quickly and at what cost greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.

We’re going to need an “all of the above approach” to energy sources … We’re going to need fossil fuels … clean coal technology … nuclear power ... wind and solar … and further efficiency gains.

We can continue to make advances and improve our environments in all these areas right now—we don’t need to wait for an international agreement.

Those are principles I think we can all agree on. But there are certain things we must agree not to do. For example, we must fight any attempts to weaken intellectual property protections for clean energy technologies. Without them, new technologies will be slower in coming just when we need them most.

Developing countries’ governments must be convinced that such protections are in their interests as well as ours. Their businesses know this already. Emerging economies now account for roughly 20% of patents, up from 5% in 1998.

In addition, we must resist the urge to use protectionist trade policies to gain domestic advantages in the name of the environment.

Slapping carbon tariffs on the products of countries we don’t think are doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a failed and dangerous approach. Such policies could spark a devastating trade war when the global economy is already on the ropes. They are also a blatant violation of WTO rules.

Instead, our governments should be working within the WTO to remove trade barriers to environmental goods and services in a non-discriminatory manner, so nations that need the right technology to improve their environment can get it.

We need to deliver a strong message about lengthy and unpredictable regulatory mazes that delay, if not halt entirely, the construction of new energy projects, even renewable projects.

It’s a big problem here, and I know it is elsewhere.

Our governments need to know that one of the best things they can do to promote green jobs is to prove predictable regulation so that project developers can move ahead with confidence.

U.S. Situation

If achieving these goals were easy, we would have done it by now. But they are not.

Look at what’s happening in this country …

Our Congress has been deadlocked over a solution to climate change risks for some time.

There are wide divisions among different states, regions, and industries … and the divisions between our elected officials are growing deeper by the day.

But make no mistake, the American business community would welcome legislation. We have not ruled out all cap-and-trade systems or a carbon tax.

The Chamber has laid out five core principles for action that we believe constitute a sensible approach to climate change.

First, climate legislation must preserve American jobs and the competitiveness of U.S. industry.

Second, it must provide an international solution that that includes the widest possible participation.

Third, it must accelerate the development and commercial adoption of clean energy technologies.

Fourth, it must reduce barriers to the development of climate-friendly energy sources.

And fifth, it should encourage energy conservation and efficiency.

Our policy folks, our advocates, and our communicators—in conjunction with our Institute—are working everyday to build consensus, advance our principles, and make real progress on these issues.

We remind everyone we talk to that this debate is not just about the climate; it is about a path forward to ensure that the United States has a long-term supply of secure and affordable energy … energy that drives our economy and underpins our quality of life.

Making Our Voices Heard

The path to progress in the United States is difficult, just as I am sure it is difficult in your country.

Americans do not see eye-to-eye on this issue, just as our countries do not see eye-to-eye.

Clearly, we are not always going to agree with each other.

But, we must get behind certain principles and communicate them with a united voice to our elected officials.

There’s an old saying around this town: “If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’ll find yourself on the menu.”

The stakes are too high in this debate to sit on our hands and hope for the best. That won’t cut it.

If we speak with a united voice, we can have a huge impact.

And we should. We will be largely responsible for developing and deploying the solutions that might emerge both from the U.S. Congress and from these international negotiations.

We need to raise voices among our leaders. So far, we are not speaking loud enough.

We need to emphasize that we’re the experts on the private sector, we understand how things work, and we know what kind of impact their decisions will have on the economy.

We are not the problem, we are the solution.

So when you go back to your respective countries, light a fire under your members. Get them talking to their elected officials. Get them behind these principles and have them recruit others to support them.

Our goal is clear—an international approach to energy security and climate change that considers growing energy needs; sets realistic goals; ensures global participation; promotes the development and trade in clean energy technologies and services; protects intellectual property; and builds stronger economies.

That goal is within reach—if we act together, if we act now, and if we act aggressively.

It is within our power to improve the environment, secure our energy needs, and fulfill our responsibility to create jobs.

The U.S. Chamber is ready to get to work … we hope you are, too.

So we thank you for coming, we’re glad you’re here, we’re going to have more great discussions tomorrow, and we’ll be meeting again.

But for now, relax and enjoy the evening. Thank you very much. # # #

Calgary Herald: Road to Recovery Will Be Rocky, Say Business Experts

9/17/2009

Elite gathers in Banff for forum

By Lisa Schmidt, Calgary Herald

CALGARY - Amid tentative signs of recovery, business leaders from Canada and abroad will debate the outlook for the global economy today in Banff at the Global Business Forum.

And the way forward still shows signs of trouble, one speaker said Wednesday.

“It’s going to take quite a long time,” said Anthony Holland, head of the Independent Complaints Commissioner to the Financial Services Authority for the United Kingdom.

Holland, who will speak at a panel Thursday afternoon, said banks are rebuilding their balance sheets, but have yet to start lending again. He expects the economy may slip again before staging a return to growth.

“The trouble is you have global recession, but, if you like, national regulation, so you can’t get all the countries to act together all at the same time and that’s the other problem.”

The forum, an invitation-only event that brings together 200 executives, academics and government officials from around the world, will centre on themes of economy, energy and environment this year.

The conference, launched 10 years ago, kicks off today with an address by Premier Ed Stelmach and brings in a number of heavyweights to speak at the two-day event, mainly organized by the Alberta Economic Development Authority.

Also weighing in on the economy will be Nariman Behravesh, chief economist with IHS Global Insight, a world-leading economics firm, as well as former Ontario premier Mike Harris and Greg Wilson, a U.S. based financial services expert.

The forum will also tackle questions over public perceptions of Alberta’s oilsands, with an address by Richard Edelman, head of New York-based Edelman Public Relations, and a speech by Gwynne Dyer, journalist and author of the Climate Wars.

Karen A. Harbert, chief executive of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will also speak to developments south of the border ahead of climate change talks in Copenhagen later this year.

“Our business executives are making decisions every day and making capital commitments in the face of a somewhat murky policy environment,” she said in an interview Wednesday.

“We have to find more opportunities for business to weigh in. . . . Policy-makers and consumers need to understand that there’s real implications in the near term for decisions.”

Other panels will focus on the outlook for world energy supply and demand, as well as the growing crisis over water issues.

READ ARTICLE

As Copenhagen Nears, U.S. Chamber to Host Business Leaders from World's Largest Economies

9/15/2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

WASHINGTON, D.C. — With international climate change negotiations rapidly approaching, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy will convene top executives representing business organizations from the world’s 17 major economies next week for a forum on global energy and climate change challenges.

The Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change (MEBF), to be held at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on September 21-22, is intended to facilitate a dialogue among global business groups in major developed and developing nations ahead of the UN climate change negotiations scheduled for early December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“We are pleased to host business leaders from around the world for a candid discussion on the challenges and solutions to addressing global climate change while increasing energy options and economic growth,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a keynote speaker at the forum’s Welcome Dinner. “The Major Economies Business Forum should contribute to a more successful and realistic international climate change agreement in Copenhagen.”

Among the confirmed speakers at the forum are U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn); Governor Joe Manchin (D-WV); and U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.). On the agenda are discussions on increasing technology innovation and investments, bolstering the business community’s voice in the negotiations, harnessing available capital for energy and efficiency projects, and ensuring competitiveness and economic development.

“As both domestic and international climate change negotiations continue, it is important to remember that it will be up to the private sector to execute the decisions made in Washington and Copenhagen,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “The Chamber’s Major Economies Business Forum will provide a real-time reality check on the negotiations by addressing the topics that matter most to the global business community like the nexus between energy security and climate policies, intellectual property rights, technology, competitiveness, and economic growth.”

Participants in the MEBF represent nearly 10 million businesses in the world’s largest nations, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, and Japan. The MEBF is modeled after the government’s Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, which last met in July in Italy. The group’s 17 nations collectively make up 80% of the world’s GDP, nearly 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and 77% of global energy consumption.

www.uschamber.com # # # www.energyxxi.org

Dow Jones: Chambers of Commerce Seek Role As Climate Talks Heat Up

9/14/2009

By Siobhan Hughes, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- To the list of groups seeking to influence international climate talks in Copenhagen later this year, add this: business groups from around the world.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy later in September will hold a conference in Washington, DC, that brings together counterparts in India, China, and other major emitting nations. The business groups will hear from West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, whose state depends heavily on coal, and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a backer of nuclear power.

The event comes as global governments prepare to meet in December in Copenhagen to develop a framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the international emissions-reduction accord that expires in 2012. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it wants to help shape the discussions at a time when government is in charge of the process.

"Business has no formal role at Copenhagen," said Karen Harbert, president of the energy institute, who was an official in the administration of President George W. Bush. The big issue for business: "how can we assure the ability of the private sector to continue to operate, to create jobs, to be profitable?"

The conference is scheduled for Sept. 21 and Sept. 22. That comes as the United Nations holds a summit on climate change in New York, and just days before another business group, the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, holds its own energy summit and international dialogue, also in Washington, DC.

The burst of summits comes just as Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., prepare to unveil a climate bill that will be the basis for a major legislative push in the Senate later in the year. The proposals will form the basis for the legislation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hopes to bring to the Senate floor by the end of the year.

September 2009 Newsletter

9/11/2009


The Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change will be held at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on September 21-22.	Stephen Eule participated in a panel discussion on the future of West Virginia’s coal industry at the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce’s 2009 Annual Meeting.

Energy Institute to Host Global Business Summit on Climate

As we get closer to December, more and more attention is being paid to the upcoming United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. The Obama Administration is under pressure to pass domestic legislation in the U.S. Senate before Copenhagen, but many others believe that an international agreement is needed first.

Either way, it has been abundantly clear to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy that one major piece has been missing from the pre-Copenhagen discussion: the global business community. There is no formal role for business in the UN negotiations, which we think is an oversight. After all, if an agreement is reached on climate change—either on Capitol Hill or in Copenhagen—it will be up to the business community to execute it. Although the private sector has already been hard at work developing clean energy technologies for many years, in many ways we are left out of the discussion on long-term energy and climate change solutions.

Rather than sit on the sidelines, however, the Energy Institute is taking action to raise the views of the business community. Later this month, the Institute will host the first meeting of the Major Economies Business Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change. Modeled after the government’s Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate which last met in July in Italy, the Major Economies Business Forum will bring together leading business executives from the world’s 17 major economies for a candid discussion about the issues and challenges to addressing climate change and the Copenhagen negotiations.

The Energy Institute has already been active in the international arena. Our platform on international climate change calls for strong intellectual property protections, the removal of trade barriers, setting realistic and achievable goals that take into account science and technology development, and ensuring the participation of all nations to allow for a balanced and competitive global response to climate change. Our collective goal must be to reduce global emissions by harnessing advanced technology, and to do that we must refrain from actions that erect trade barriers or other actions that erode a nation’s competitiveness and economic growth.

Among the confirmed speakers at the Major Economies Business Forum are Governor Joe Manchin (D-WV), U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.). An official from the Obama Administration has also been invited. The Chamber’s Energy Institute hopes that this discussion will be the first in a series of Major Economies Business Forums leading up to Copenhagen and beyond.

VIEW FROM THE STATES

Better, Less Costly Ways to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Written By: Don C. Brunell
President, Association of Washington Business

President Obama says the opponents of cap and trade are not telling the truth. Unfortunately, the president is attempting to position his opponents as “do nothing” on the environment, which is not true. He needs to recognize there are other less costly ways to reduce CO2 which will help lift our economy rather than sink it.

The cap and trade legislation, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gases, is estimated to be the largest cost increase to families in our nation’s history, and as Warren Buffett said, people are right to be concerned because they will feel it in their electric bills.

While we oppose cap and trade, Washington’s business community supports a stronger, cleaner energy future. For example, wind energy is an important new source of electricity and when added to the grid can help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. The Association of Washington Businesses (AWB) is working to site wind farms in Washington, the most recent of which is the Whistling Ridge Project northwest of White Salmon.

Second, we support maintaining our hydro system which produces about three-quarters of our electricity in Washington. We support the biological opinion, an agreement by most tribes, agriculture, river users, businesses and state and federal agencies, to restore wild salmon and steelhead runs. This agreement will maintain commercial navigation on the Columbia and Snake rivers, ensure continued power production and protect irrigated agriculture.

Third, we continue to support development of clean coal and other fossil fuel for energy production. Our state can become a world leader in clean energy technology and market that technology and expertise around the world — particularly to help China and India curb their greenhouse gas emissions.

So, what could our federal and state governments do to protect the environment without devastating our hobbled economy?

First, Congress could take another look at nuclear energy. France, which gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, continues to make steady progress in plant safety and in reprocessing spent fuel rods. Like hydro, nuclear energy produces no carbon dioxide.

Secondly, government should use incentives rather than punitive measures to encourage new technology to control greenhouse gases. Market-based solutions will ultimately lead to breakthrough technologies. Government should not inadvertently attempt to create winners and losers as will happen with cap and trade.

Third, Congress needs to learn from the experiences of other countries. A careful examination of cap and trade rules in the European Union and Australia as well as the state of California shows reason to be very concerned about the intended and unintended consequences. Rather than rushing ahead, Congress should slow down, carefully look at what is happening elsewhere, and then thoughtfully act.

Fourth, our state needs to revisit our renewable energy mandate. It does not recognize hydro and pulping liquors as renewable energy sources, and it restricts utilities from purchasing renewable electricity, particularly from wind and solar sources, to the Bonneville Power Administration service area. Much of the renewable power coming on line is in the plains states and central Canada, and under current Washington law, that doesn’t count as renewable.

Finally, Congress cannot ignore the cost impacts. There are costs associated with all of this, and we need to recognize that our families, government and employers have to find the money to pay for these changes. Careful cost analysis must accompany all legislation, but the cap and trade bill that passed the House lacked careful analysis and glossed over the associated costs. In fact, many in Congress admitted they did not even read the bill.

Given the gravity of what the president and Congress are doing, we need to make sure we know precisely what the problems are, thoroughly address them, and act deliberately. In this case, haste can result in more than just waste.

That is something we cannot let happen because we do not want to saddle our children and grandchildren with costly and unworkable legislation.

Don Brunell is the president of the Association of Washington Business.

Roundup

Institute VP for Climate and Technology Addresses WV Chamber: Stephen Eule, the Energy Institute’s Vice President for Climate and Technology, addressed the future of coal during the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce’ Business Summit on Friday, September 4. Eule discussed the impact that the proposed Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation will have on West Virginia’s coal industry and the American economy as a while. While Eule advocated for continued research and development investments in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, he pointed out that CCS is likely 10-15 years away from being commercially viable, making strict emissions mandates like those in Waxman-Markey impossible for states like West Virginia to meet. Later this month, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin will address the Major Economies Business Forum at the Chamber.
Virginia, Florida Legislative Leaders Push for Oil and Gas Exploration: As states continue to grapple with financial hardships, state government leaders are expressing a desire to turn to a source of revenue that will also enhance our nation’s energy security—oil and gas exploration. The Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, Bill Howell, recently sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking that 2.9 million acres 50 miles off the coast of Virginia be made available for exploration. Virginia was included in the Minerals Management Service five-year plan that was halted by Secretary Salazar for further review in February.

Virginia leaders aren’t the only ones open to offshore oil and gas exploration. Florida State Senator Mike Haridopolos, expected to become the President for the Florida Senate in 2010, has been meeting with State Representative Dean Cannon, the likely Florida House Speaker, to develop a proposal for offshore oil and gas exploration. The Floridians hope to tap into revenue sharing that is currently available to other Gulf of Mexico states. Haridopolos estimates that offshore exploration could provide Florida with at least $1.5 billion in revenue for education, healthcare, and conservation efforts under the Gulf revenue sharing system.

Record Gap Between Oil and Gas Prices in August: August saw one interesting development—a record gap between the price of oil and natural gas. Due to a 67- percent increase in oil prices and a 48- percent decrease in gas prices, the ratio of oil to gas prices hit a record 26.4-1 during the third week of August. A major factor in the decline of natural gas prices has been lower industrial demand due to weak economic growth. On the other hand, expectations about China’s growing appetite for oil appear to be fueling the rise in oil prices.

The Month Ahead

Health Care Debate May Delay Senate Climate Action: Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced that they will delay the unveiling of their climate bill until the end of September. The pair had previously announced that their bill would be ready by the time Congress returned from recess on September 8. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had called for committee work to be completed on a climate bill by September 28, which seems unlikely given the intense focus on health care and widespread divisions among Senate Democrats on climate legislation.
Columbus Metropolitan Club to Host Harbert: As part of the Institute’s ongoing efforts to insert facts and reality into the current debate on climate change, Energy Institute President and CEO Karen Harbert will deliver a policy address to the Columbus Metropolitan Club on September 23. Harbert is expected to discuss the impact of the proposed-Waxman Markey climate change bill on the industrial Midwest. With its heavy reliance on manufacturing, cities like Columbus would be particularly hard hit by strict federal mandates on greenhouse gas emissions. The Metropolitan Club is made up of over 600 community and business leaders in Columbus. Video of the speech will be available on the Institute’s website.
Bangkok Next Up for U.N. Climate Negotiators: Shortly after the conclusion of the Major Economies Business Forum at the U.S. Chamber, climate negotiators will head to Bangkok for another round of talks. The Bangkok meetings come after reports that little progress was made in the August’s Bonn negotiating session. Developing and developed nations still remain far apart on emissions reduction targets and costs. Many analysts believe that unless significant progress is made in Bangkok, a climate deal in Copenhagen will be impossible.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail: Cap-and-trade Scenario Dire for Jobs

9/7/2009

By George Hohmann
Daily Mail Business Editor

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS - The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy bill pending in Congress could cost West Virginia 38,500 jobs, West Virginia University economist Tom Witt said.

Simple scenarios using the university's economic modeling software indicate that if the Waxman-Markey bill became law, by 2030 the state would experience a 1.4 percent decline in population, lose 38,500 jobs, and the gross state product would be 4.5 percent lower than it would have been without the legislation, Witt said.

"This year there is a $7,000 gap between the average per capita personal income in West Virginia and the United States," he said. "With Waxman-Markey, by 2030 the gap will be $9,000. Today we take pride in the fact that we rank 47th or 48th in per capita income, not 50th. I think it's almost a guarantee that by 2030, in terms of the implications in this bill, we would be last in this country."

A study commissioned earlier this summer by the National Association of Manufacturers predicted passage of the cap-and-trade bill would cost West Virginia between 8,200 and 11,100 jobs by 2030.

The legislation also would increase the amount that low-income families in West Virginia spend on energy from 17.2 percent of their income to between 19.3 percent and 20.2 percent by 2030, that study said.

Witt said it's impossible to be precise about the bill's impact because no one knows its final form. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26. The Senate is expected to take up a similar measure later this year.

Witt is director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at West Virginia University. He and Cal Kent, vice president of Business and Economic Research at Marshall University, spoke Friday at the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce's Business Summit at The Greenbrier Resort.

Kent said, "No product in West Virginia is more highly taxed than coal. By a conservative estimate, every ton of coal mined carries $5.75 worth of tax."

The coal severance tax raises $335 million annually and accounts for 8 percent of the state government's general revenue, Kent said. The corporate net income tax raises $401 million. Coal property taxes raise $105 million that go annually to local governments and schools. A special reclamation tax accounts for $17 million and the coal resource transportation road fund accounts for $4 million. That's $862 million.

"Add in other fees, including the personal income taxes paid by those who work in the coal industry, and you have over $1 billion coming to state and local government from this one industry alone," Kent said. "Coal revenue is absolutely vital for the continued prosperity of state and local government in this state."

Witt and Kent are collaborating on what Witt called "a very definitive study of the economic contributions of the coal industry in West Virginia." Friday's
presentation was designed to "give you a hint of some of the results," he said.

Steve Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, said whoever gets to frame the debate over the Waxman-Markey bill will win.

If advocates succeed in convincing the public that the legislation will create green jobs, provide energy security and cost nothing more than the equivalent of a postage stamp a day, they will win, he said. But if opponents convince the public it is a job-killing industry tax that will ship thousands of jobs overseas, it will not pass.

"That's the battleground - how this bill is going to be portrayed," Eule said.

Gene Kitts, senior vice president of mining services at International Coal Group, said the coal industry is under attack by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"We have an EPA that is essentially waging war on this industry and they're not backing off," he said.

If the EPA is successful in its regulatory attempts, "the impact is going to come much harder and quicker than climate-change legislation. And we don't get to vote on it."

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Better, Less Costly Ways to Reduce Greenhouse Gases

9/1/2009

by Don C. Brunell
President, Association of Washington Business

President Obama says the opponents of cap and trade are not telling the truth. Unfortunately, the president is attempting to position his opponents as “do nothing” on the environment, which is not true. He needs to recognize there are other less costly ways to reduce CO2 which will help lift our economy rather than sink it.

The cap and trade legislation, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gases, is estimated to be the largest cost increase to families in our nation’s history, and as Warren Buffett said, people are right to be concerned because they will feel it in their electric bills.

While we oppose cap and trade, Washington’s business community supports a stronger, cleaner energy future. For example, wind energy is an important new source of electricity and when added to the grid can help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. The Association of Washington Businesses (AWB) is working to site wind farms in Washington, the most recent of which is the Whistling Ridge Project northwest of White Salmon.

Second, we support maintaining our hydro system which produces about three-quarters of our electricity in Washington. We support the biological opinion, an agreement by most tribes, agriculture, river users, businesses and state and federal agencies, to restore wild salmon and steelhead runs. This agreement will maintain commercial navigation on the Columbia and Snake rivers, ensure continued power production and protect irrigated agriculture.

Third, we continue to support development of clean coal and other fossil fuel for energy production. Our state can become a world leader in clean energy technology and market that technology and expertise around the world — particularly to help China and India curb their greenhouse gas emissions.

So, what could our federal and state governments do to protect the environment without devastating our hobbled economy?

First, Congress could take another look at nuclear energy. France, which gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, continues to make steady progress in plant safety and in reprocessing spent fuel rods. Like hydro, nuclear energy produces no carbon dioxide.

Secondly, government should use incentives rather than punitive measures to encourage new technology to control greenhouse gases. Market-based solutions will ultimately lead to breakthrough technologies. Government should not inadvertently attempt to create winners and losers as will happen with cap and trade.

Third, Congress needs to learn from the experiences of other countries. A careful examination of cap and trade rules in the European Union and Australia as well as the state of California shows reason to be very concerned about the intended and unintended consequences. Rather than rushing ahead, Congress should slow down, carefully look at what is happening elsewhere, and then thoughtfully act.

Fourth, our state needs to revisit our renewable energy mandate. It does not recognize hydro and pulping liquors as renewable energy sources, and it restricts utilities from purchasing renewable electricity, particularly from wind and solar sources, to the Bonneville Power Administration service area. Much of the renewable power coming on line is in the plains states and central Canada, and under current Washington law, that doesn’t count as renewable.

Finally, Congress cannot ignore the cost impacts. There are costs associated with all of this, and we need to recognize that our families, government and employers have to find the money to pay for these changes. Careful cost analysis must accompany all legislation, but the cap and trade bill that passed the House lacked careful analysis and glossed over the associated costs. In fact, many in Congress admitted they did not even read the bill.

Given the gravity of what the president and Congress are doing, we need to make sure we know precisely what the problems are, thoroughly address them, and act deliberately. In this case, haste can result in more than just waste.

That is something we cannot let happen because we do not want to saddle our children and grandchildren with costly and unworkable legislation.

Don Brunell is the president of the Association of Washington Business.

WV Media Network: W.Va. Business Summit to Focus on Challenges of Coal

8/29/2009

Panelists expected to discuss the impact of climate change legislation and recent court battles.

Story by Pam Kasey

Coal’s future will be the subject of a panel, “Preserving the West Virginia Coal Industry,” at the Sept. 2-4 West Virginia Chamber of Commerce Business Summit.
International Coal Group Vice President Eugene Kitts will discuss ideas he presented before the Senate at a June hearing on mountaintop mining.

“The indicator the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses for measuring the quality of (streams) is the existence of certain types of aquatic insects,” Kitts explained.

“They are using this criterion, which isn’t supported by state water quality standards, to claim that mining activity is causing a significant adverse impact on water quality. Our argument is that the state is the entity that should be interpreting the narrative water quality standards, and that the state has to make the judgment calls as to whether an activity is allowed or not allowed based on potential impact.”

Whether the state itself can use biological indicators is the subject of a Notice of Intent to Institute Civil Action that the West Virginia Coal Association filed with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection in April.

While Kitts will focus on the effects on coal of efforts to preserve stream quality, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President for Climate and Technology Stephen Eule will talk about the possible effects on coal because of climate change legislation now in Congress.

Eule plans to cover the climate bill passed by the House of Representatives in June and versions that are taking shape in the Senate. He will then discuss the scale of greenhouse gas emissions reductions proposed by the House.

“I don’t think people have an appreciation for how much has to be done to reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050,” said Eule.

Emissions reductions called for in the House bill may be met through means that include energy demand reduction, efficiency and clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

But CCS is not yet ready, Eule said.

“There’s no regulatory framework at this point, and that’s got to be developed,” he said. “There are liability issues, big pipeline systems will be needed to inject carbon dioxide into appropriate geologic formations — so there’s a lot of things that have to fall into place. I think we’re still 10 to 15 years away from commercially viable carbon capture and sequestration technology.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Economic Cornerstone of West Virginia under Attack

8/4/2009

by Steve Roberts
President, West Virginia Chamber of Commerce

With its vast energy resources, extraction infrastructure, and energy production facilities, West Virginia is one of the leading energy states in the nation. The state also is a leader in electricity generation and offers business and residential customers affordable, reliable energy supplies.

But there’s a war being waged against domestic energy right now, and it’s put our economy, our jobs, and our energy security under attack. Although the whole country will suffer the ill-effects, West Virginians are especially concerned.

Coal, undoubtedly West Virginia's best-known natural resource, is mined in 26 of the state's 55 counties. West Virginia's coal is so diverse in grade and rank that nearly any needed specification can be matched here.

But the coal industry, the jobs it supports, and the affordable electricity it provides would be seriously harmed if poorly designed climate change legislation is pushed through Congress.
West Virginia’s low cost of energy has long been a competitive advantage.

Preserving this advantage is of key importance to West Virginia businesses and citizens as we press forward to retain and create jobs. The proposed cap and trade plan found in the Waxman-Markey legislation would be especially hard-hitting on West Virginians, since nearly 100 percent of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants.

West Virginia and energy production are inextricably connected. Coal mining, natural gas production, and electricity generation provide approximately one-third of our state’s total economic activity. Coal mining alone directly employs close to 45,000 people in West Virginia, and the coal industry pays nearly $1 billion in annual direct wages to West Virginians. It also indirectly helps support employment and business for countless others in nearly every community in and adjacent to our state. Without the wages and benefits provided by the state’s coal industry, many West Virginians would be out of work and out of luck.

Adding even more reason for concern, coal also provides hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local taxes. Including taxes paid by the state’s electric generation and transmission industries, coal provides close to 60 percent of all business taxes paid in the state. These dollars provide for our local schools, for our State Police protection, for our health care services, and for other essential services.

West Virginia is an energy state, and one that we are proud to be a part of because now more than ever, this nation needs inexpensive and dependable sources of domestic energy. The nation’s coal industry is responding to our changing world and is focused on the use of clean coal technologies and advances in mining operations and techniques. We should invest in technology and innovation that will move these kinds of technologies forward, helping our environment and protecting our economy at the same time. Doing anything else is ill-advised at best and reckless at worst.

While employers appreciate the various points of view surrounding climate change and environmental issues, how we approach this topic as a state and nation will have bearing on our state and this nation’s overall wellbeing: on our jobs, on our families’ incomes, and on energy costs. We face the undesirable specter of West Virginia moving from an energy state to a poor state.

Given the choice, West Virginians will choose to support domestic energy every time. Now we just need a Congress and a President that will do the same.

Steve Roberts is the President of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. The views expressed in this article are his own.

August 2009 Newsletter

8/4/2009


Karen Harbert addresses the National Governors Association Annual Meeting. Vice Chair Governor Joe Manchin (D-WV) is pictured next to Harbert.	The Energy Institute and U.S.-Brazil Business Council cosponsored a luncheon featuring Brazilian Energy Minister Edison Labao.

Karen Harbert Addresses America’s Governors

When America’s Governors decided that energy was such a pressing issue that it deserved its own working session, they called Energy Institute President and CEO Karen Harbert to help them gain a better understanding of the complex energy picture. Harbert addressed the Plenary Session of the National Governors Association Annual Meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi on July 20. The session focused on Energy and the Economy and was televised live on C-SPAN.

While much of the country is looking to Washington on energy and environmental issues, Harbert noted that it is important to remember that America’s Governors and state officials also play an important role in determining our energy future. In fact, in some cases, the states are the center of activity for key decisions that impact energy policy, such as adding transmission capacity and siting new energy projects for construction.

As part of the Institute’s mission to insert facts into the debate on energy and climate change, Harbert told the governors that America would have to reduce its carbon emissions by 1 gigaton by 2020 to meet emissions targets proposed by the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill and the Obama administration. To put this in perspective, reducing a gigaton of carbon dioxide in the power sector would mean building for example, either 130 1-gigawatt nuclear reactors, 127,500 large wind turbines, or 1.7 million acres of photovoltaic solar arrays and removing the equivalent amount of generation from coal.

In addition, Harbert lamented the increasing amount of “green tape” surrounding energy projects of all types. She referred to a mentality of “BANANA” (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), which has resulted in hundreds of stalled projects, from new wind turbines to additional oil and gas production. Overcoming that mentality in states will be essential if the U.S. is to meet its future energy demand.

Harbert also called for a comprehensive approach to energy that does not pick winners and losers, but places all affordable and reliable options on the table, including the 85 percent of American oil and gas resources that are currently not being explored.

Following her remarks, Harbert took questions from several Governors and made her presentation available to the Governors and their staffs. You can watch her entire presentation at the Institute’s website here.

VIEW FROM THE STATES

Economic Cornerstone of West Virginia under Attack
By Steve Roberts, President, West Virginia Chamber of Commerce

Given the choice, West Virginians will choose to support domestic energy every time. Now we just need a Congress and a President that will do the same.

Steve Roberts is the President of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. The views expressed in this article are his own.

August Recess Presents an Opportunity for Constituents to Influence Congress

Given its renowned humidity and heat, August in Washington is not a particularly pleasant place to be. So it is no surprise that everyone from President Obama to members of Congress are making plans to flee the nation’s Capitol this month.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to be on recess from August 4-September 4, while the U.S. Senate will take its break from August 10-September 7. Those that follow Congress closely know that members usually take exception to the term “recess,” and the time period is usually referred to by Congressional offices as a “district work period.”

Although members do generally take advantage of the time away from Washington to vacation and spend time with family, there is certainly some truth to the “district work period” moniker. Recess is a golden opportunity for members to reconnect with constituents through town hall meetings and other events, which means it is also an opportunity for constituents to tell their representatives exactly what is on their minds.

Providing feedback to members of Congress, particularly face-to-face, can have a significant impact on how they vote back in Washington. For instance, Roll Call reported last month that “[v]ulnerable House Democrats want the Senate to go first [on health care reform] so they can avoid a repeat of the bruising they suffered over the July Fourth recess after edging a controversial climate change package over the line.” In other words, just a week home was enough to bring some Representatives to want to change the legislative agenda in Washington. In addition, with such high turnover in the last election, there are more freshman members of Congress than in most years, which means that they are likely to be even more sensitive to what the folks back home think.

If you sign up to be a member of the Energy Institute (it’s free), you’ll gain access to our Congressional database, as well as all the information you will need to contact media outlets to write letters or call in to radio shows right where you live. When you call your member’s office, it might be beneficial to ask what his or her schedule of public events will be. The Institute’s Policy and Resource Center, also available online, will arm you with the facts you’ll need to talk to your Representative or Senator. With further debate on a cap and trade bill that will cost our economy millions of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars while not significantly impacting global emissions coming up in the fall, there is no more important time to make your voice heard!

Roundup

Developing World Balking at Emissions Targets: India became the latest nation to balk at the aggressive mandatory emissions reduction targets that the United States and other major economic powers are seeking in advance of December’s United Nations International Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh delivered a strong rebuke—in person—to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during Clinton’s visit to India last month. Ramesh told Clinton, “India's position, let me be clear, is that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets.” Ramesh went on to complain about continuing U.S. pressure to make binding agreements that India believes will cripple its economy.

Meanwhile, in China, Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke made strongly-worded remarks intended to prod China into agreeing to emissions reduction targets. The Chinese official news agency, Xinhua, omitted any reference to Chu and Locke’s statements on the subject in its reporting. Locke and Chu later praised China’s efforts to reduce emissions, but according to press reports, no progress on climate change negotiations was made either in China or in late July at the U.S.-China Economic Summit in Washington. China and India did not sign on to the goal adopted at the most recent G8 summit in Italy. The G8 agreement was to keep the world’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, and to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Developing countries aren’t the only ones balking at such ambitious targets, however. Although Japan did sign on to the G8 agreement, this past June Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso announced that Japan will seek to reduce emissions by fifteen percent over the next 11 years. Although that commitment would represent a significant emissions reduction, Japan’s announcement left the U.N.’s climate chief “speechless.”

Reid Receives Commitments to End Funding for Yucca Program: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a longtime opponent of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program, announced that he has received commitments from the Obama Administration to end funding for the project in the FY2011 appropriations process. However, writing on the Chamber’s blog, the Energy Institute’s Christopher Guith argues that cutting funding for the license application process would be a misguided and premature decision without an alternative to Yucca in place. “Cancelling the nation’s nuclear waste repository, established by law, without providing an alternative path forward would be the latest step in a troubling trend that leads one to seriously question the Obama Administration’s commitment to meeting its legal obligations on nuclear waste,” he wrote.

Institute’s International Outreach Continues With Focus on Brazil and Japan: In the month of July, the Institute for 21st Century Energy hosted two high level visits from top energy and climate advisors representing Brazil and Japan. In collaboration with the Brazil-U.S. Business Council, the Institute held a luncheon featuring Brazilian Energy Minister Edison Labao. In addition, the Institute welcomed Masakazu Toyoda, Special Advisor to the Cabinet and Cabinet Secretariat, for a breakfast meeting to discuss Japan and U.S. positions on energy and climate change. Both events were attended by industry leaders and representatives from their respective nations.

Energy Institute/Brookings Event Sparks Robust Discussion on the Future of Nuclear: The third in a quarterly series of Capitol Hill lunches hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Energy Institute and the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings sparked perhaps the most robust discussion yet. The topic—“Nuclear Waste Policy at a Crossroads”—likely had something to do with that. The participants, which included Hiroshi Fujihara, Chief Representative of the Federal of Electric Power Companies of Japan; Jay Silberg of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman; Thomas Cochran, Director of the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Brew Barron, CEO and Chief Nuclear Officer of Constellation Generation Group, identified the most significant and contentious challenges and outlined the options available. A starting point for the discussion was the Institute’s May report, which issues recommendations on managing the nation’s nuclear waste and used fuel stored in 39 states, even if Yucca Mountain is not an option for nuclear waste.

Senate Climate Timeline Still Slipping: With the Senate consumed with health care, a Supreme Court nomination, and the FY2010 appropriations process, the timeline for action on cap and trade legislation is continuing to slip. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has set a September 28 target date for six Senate committees to finalize a cap and trade bill, which Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) believes will be met. However, given the uncertainty surrounding the health care debate, further delays should be expected, and there is no stated timetable for action by the full Senate.

Biloxi (MS) Sun Herald: Governor's Convention Wraps Up

7/21/2009

By MICHAEL NEWSOM

BILOXI — In the final session of the National Governors Association summer meetings Monday, governors debated climate change and energy policy.
Governors talked about provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill aimed at reducing climate change, which also would require that a certain amount of power come from renewable sources such as the sun and wind.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the bill, which has drawn criticism from those who say although it would make the U.S. work on climate change, nations such as China and India would not, which would negate progress made by the U.S. They also say it would place a litany of new regulations that would be costly.

Others said the United States should work on climate change regardless of what other countries do. The cost to customers would be minimal, they said.

After the discussion, Gov. Haley Barbour said wind and solar technology currently aren’t practical to produce large amounts of power for Mississippi.

“The Tennessee Valley Authority, one of our big electric utilities, has two big wind farms in their area. They are not in Mississippi,” Barbour said. “Those two wind farms operate 20 percent of the time. They are turned off 80 percent of the time because there is not enough wind.”

He also said there isn’t enough capacity to store electricity in significant amounts. Barbour also said studies have shown solar power isn’t a viable option for the state. He also said he disagrees with renewable energy rules that would give no points for nuclear power.

Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said there hasn’t been much effort to take advantage of energy sources available in the United States and that all forms of energy should be used.

“We can’t pick and choose our solutions for the future,” Harbert said. “We don’t have silver bullets. I say we need a silver buckshot. We need it all. We need natural gas, and we need to produce more of it here at home. It creates American jobs, it creates American industry, it certainly increases our energy security.

“We need nuclear, we need clean coal .... We need renewables. We absolutely need renewables.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

July 2009 Newsletter

7/6/2009

Karen Harbert debates the impacts of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation at a Congressional Quarterly forum. Also pictured are Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress and moderator Judy Woodruff of PBS.

Christopher Guith testified before a Senate Republican Conference hearing on nuclear energy. The hearing was televised live on CSPAN and subsequently aired several times in late June.

Natural Gas is Abundant…So Let’s Not Tax It Off the Table
Last month, we received some interesting and welcome news: America’s natural gas reserves are far greater than previously thought. According to the Potential Gas Committee, a team of experts that analyzes natural gas supply every two years, the U.S. has 2,074 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. That amount represents over 110 years of supply at current levels of consumption and is the largest estimated amount ever found in the 44-year history of the report.

Given the fact that natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, it would stand to reason that there would be universal consensus that we should use more of it. Unfortunately, both the Administration and some in Congress seem to have a different idea. They’re seeking to increase taxes and fees on domestic oil exploration, as well as production of natural gas.

In response to these efforts, the Energy Institute issued a new report in June, titled Taxing Our Way to Energy Insecurity Again. The message of the report is that raising taxes on domestic oil and gas production leads to energy insecurity by increasing imports, harms U.S. economic competitiveness, jeopardizes U.S. jobs, and increases costs to consumers.

The Administration's FY2010 budget seeks to levy more than $80 billion in new taxes and fees on the oil and gas industry. In addition, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) has authored draft legislation that would reduce the initial lease period for new leases by half (effectively doubling their cost), increase the minimum royalty rate collected on production of oil or gas, and impose new fees on certain leases.

Taken together, these two actions would have a crippling effect on both the oil and natural gas industries in the U.S. Given the massive upfront costs involved in exploring and drilling for oil and gas, imposing taxes and unattractive lease terms would likely have a chilling effect on future domestic production. The proposals come at a time when the U.S. oil and gas industry is already facing higher production costs. A recent Ernst and Young report reveals that the costs of exploring for oil and gas increased by 35 percent last year. Moreover, our industry is competing against state-owned oil companies which control nearly 80% percent of world oil reserves and are heavily subsidized by their parent governments.

Raising production costs even further will result in less energy security, and also raise prices for consumers as increased costs are likely to be passed on. Historically, higher taxes on oil—such as the Windfall Profits Tax in the 1980s—resulted in the need to import significantly more foreign oil, and failed to produce as much as revenue as the federal government expected.

The Chamber’s Energy Institute will continue to be an outspoken advocate for developing America's abundant resources and that includes oil and natural gas. Instead of tax us to energy insecurity, we’ll be a voice for producing more energy and more jobs here at home.

News Roundup

House Narrowly Passes Waxman-Markey Climate Bill: An intense, last minute lobbying by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) still was not enough to keep 44 Democrats and all but eight Republicans from voting against the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation. In the end, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate legislation by the narrowest of margins, with just 219 votes. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill because it would raise costs for businesses and consumers without fostering a global solution to climate change. House members were forced to vote on the bill even though most had not even seen its final text (1,500 pages), which was under revision until the wee hours of the morning on the day of the vote.

The difficulty that Democratic leaders had in passing the bill in the House foretells the obstacles it faces in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to move legislation. Many Senators, including moderate Democrats, have expressed concerns about the bill’s overall effectiveness and impact on the economy—understandable concerns, given the National Black Chamber of Commerce study revealing that the bill will result in a $350 billion loss in domestic GDP and cost America 2.5 million jobs. In fact, the concerns about job losses are so real that the bill itself creates a comprehensive new unemployment system—called the “Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance Program”—intended to aid those who lose their jobs as a result of the bill. In addition, the legislation would impose tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t have similar CO2 reduction schemes, which will raise costs on most consumer goods and lead to trade wars. President Obama has expressed opposition to this component of the bill. Most expect that the Senate will not act on climate change legislation until the fall, with health care and a Supreme Court nomination dominating the rest of the summer. Nevertheless, the Institute and the U.S. Chamber are gearing up for the debate with analysis, regional outreach, and educational tools expected to be released in the coming months.

Senate Energy Bill Clears Hurdle: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee completed work on an energy bill after several months of hearings and markups. The American Clean Energy Leadership Act, approved by a 15-8 vote in the energy committee, contains several provisions that the Energy Institute recommended in its Blueprint for Securing America’s Energy Future. In particular, the Institute has strongly advocated for a clean energy bank, which is contained in the bill in the form of the Clean Energy Development Administration (CEDA). CEDA would provide an array of financial services to accelerate the commercial use of clean energy technologies, including nuclear energy.

The Institute praised the committee for clarifying Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to ensure that America can continue to import oil from Canadian oil sands. Canada is our largest supplier of imported oil, and one of our closest and most dependable allies. The bill also contains provisions to increase production of oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, although we are disappointed that revenue sharing with states was not included. Another concern is the inclusion of a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which creates a “one-size fits all” renewable mandate on states regardless of their natural resources. Of course, some groups have criticized the committee’s RES for not being strong enough, and indeed the House has included a more stringent version in the Waxman-Markey bill. The Senate energy bill may eventually be combined with climate change legislation, meaning that action is unlikely until the fall.
Administration Grants CA Waiver: As was widely expected, the Obama Administration granted the state of California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The waiver was granted following a proposal by the administration to raise fuel economy standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. As part of the agreement between the EPA and California, the state will refrain from imposing its own standards until at least 2016. Automobile manufacturers have long opposed giving individual states the authority to set their own standards, since it will create a patchwork of vehicle requirements regionally and likely raise manufacturing costs.

View From the States
Montana Will Fuel America’s Future
By Webb Brown, President and CEO, Montana Chamber of Commerce

Have you ever searched your house from top to bottom for some missing keys, remote control or your wallet/purse only to realize it was right under your nose?

That is how it often seems with Congress and our nation’s energy policy. Lawmakers are always searching for the “fix” to our energy problems, but the answer is right in front of them: responsible development of our energy resources here at home. Montana is just one of the states where we have barely scratched the surface of energy sources like clean coal, oil & gas, wind, solar and more.

Soon after Montana entered the Union, it became known as the “Treasure State.” At that time, homesteaders had no idea that vast amounts of energy were stored beneath the ground in the form of coal, oil and gas. By the 1970s many Montana communities, both large and small, had their economies centered around these important industries. But even now, there are huge energy prospects around the state just waiting to be tapped.

Montana sits on America's greatest coal reserves - 120 billion tons, worth about $1.5 trillion at current prices. That’s enough coal to single-handedly take care of our country’s coal needs for over 100 years and to put thousands of Montanans to work with good-paying jobs. We have one-fourth of the United States’ coal, but only around 4% of the total production. Questions surrounding Montana’s state environmental laws, transportation issues and the on-going debate over cap-and-trade measures are some of the greatest roadblocks in the way of responsible development of coal.

Montana also has remarkable oil and gas resources just waiting to be extracted. For example, Montana sits on part of a rock area called the Bakken formation that contains huge deposits of oil. In 2008, a USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil in the Bakkens at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), with a mean of 3.65 billion. In addition, there are trillions of cubic feet of coalbed methane in places like the Powder River Basin. Traditional energy is abundant in the “Last Best Place.”

Over the last few decades, Montana has taken on an additional nickname – “Big Sky Country.” Our vast skies and open spaces allow Montana to have great potential for additional energy sources like solar, wind and biodiesel. These resources, coupled with Montana’s traditional energy resources, can fuel our nation for years to come.

We are just starting to harness our wind for energy in Montana. Over the past decade, we’ve seen wind production increase from next to nothing to 272 MW. But with Montana ranking 5th in wind energy potential, we still have a long way to go before we take advantage of this renewable resource.

Like the strong majority of Americans who support increased energy development from domestic sources, Montana families are anxious to see more energy production. In a recent scientific poll of 600 Montana voters (4.1% margin of error), 75% of Montana voters want the state to encourage more coal, oil and gas development while only 14% are opposed. Additionally, a strong 76% favor new development of coal-powered electrical generation to provide more long-term, low-cost energy for the state. They understand that increased energy production means less dependence on foreign countries, more good-paying jobs, and higher revenues for government programs like education.

We don’t need to look any longer for the answer to our country’s energy problems – the answer is literally right under our nose. It’s time we stop searching for the fix and start using the resources we have right here at home. Montana wants to play a big part in fueling America’s future.

The views expressed in this article represent his own.

Energy Institute Expands Online Presence
“I agree. We should not make energy more expensive. Great points!” So wrote a YouTube member about Energy Institute President and CEO Karen Harbert's latest video on the perils of higher oil and gas taxes. Meanwhile, elsewhere on the web, several bloggers were citing the Institute’s report on that subject on their blogs, and our Facebook “fans” received an update about it on their “wall.”

Research shows that over 92 percent of journalists research online while writing a story, 90 percent of Congressional staff use blogs to help determine constituent opinions, and 64 percent of Congressional staff say that blogs are more useful than mainstream media for identifying hot political issues. To tap into this rapidly growing segment, the Energy Institute is increasing its use of online tools such as YouTube, blogs, and Facebook to educate the public about energy and climate issues. Although we’ve only recently begun using YouTube, already over 550 viewers have watched videos of our policy experts talking about the most important energy issues of the day such as climate change, nuclear energy, and oil and gas taxes.

Through our Facebook page, we are updating our supporters in real time on actions that will affect them and providing easy access to our reports and multimedia presentations. To become a Facebook “fan” of the Institute, visit http://www.facebook.com/energyinstitute --and stay tuned to our website for new videos and blog entries. See you online!

The Month Ahead

Energy Institute, Brookings to Hold Hill Briefing on Nuclear Waste: Following the May release of the Energy Institute’s Revisiting America’s Nuclear Waste Policy report, the Energy Institute (EI) and the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution will hold a Capitol Hill briefing titled “Nuclear Waste Policy at a Crossroads” on July 17. The briefing is the third in the “Energy Realities and Opportunities” series sponsored by EI and Brookings, and will take place in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center at 12:00 p.m. (lunch is provided). Among the confirmed speakers are Hiroshi Fujihara, Chief Representative of the Federal of Electric Power Companies of Japan ; Jay Silberg of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman ;Thomas Cochran, Director of the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Henry Brew Barron, CEO and Chief Nuclear Officer of Constellation Generation Group. Seating is limited, so RSVP today.

G8 Summit and Major Economies Forum in Italy: President Obama and other leaders from industrial nations and large developing countries will meet in Italy July 8-9, and climate change will be front and center. The Major Economies Forum (MEF) begun under President Bush and continued by the Obama Administration, brings together the 17 largest economies and greenhouse gas emitters for discussions that could help smooth the way for a new international climate deal.

The U.S. is being pressured in both venues—particularly by the European Union—to make a strong statement on climate change. In particular, the EU is pushing for the U.S. to accept a scientific finding that a 2 degree Celsius global temperature increase would be catastrophic for mankind. Thus far, the administration has avoided mentioning any specific global goal, and to do so in the G8 or MEF would undoubtedly create complications for the U.S. negotiating position in the climate talks now underway in the UN. As always, the U.S. should be prepared to walk away from a bad deal, particularly if it places America at a competitive disadvantage. While most of the focus will rightly be on the financial crisis, the statements on climate that will emerge from these talks also bear watching.

EVENTS
7/8/09    Christopher Guith will discuss nuclear energy policy at a luncheon in honor of former Governor Christie Todd Whitman hosted by the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Antonio, TX

7/17/09   The Energy Institute is co-hosting an energy event with the Brookings Institution on the future of nuclear waste. To attend the event, RSVP here.
Washington, DC

7/20/09   Karen Harbert will deliver remarks at the National Governors Association meeting
Biloxi, MS

7/20/09 Fred Smith will be on a panel at the 4th Transatlantic Market Conference: Transatlantic Cooperation for Growth and Employment, co-hosted by Draeger-Stiftung and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Washington, DC

Washington Times: Energy Job Losers Could Get Windfall

7/3/2009

By: Amanda DeBard

Workers who lose their jobs if the pending climate change legislation becomes law could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits -- all courtesy of Uncle Sam -- under a little-noticed provision of the bill.

Touted by its House Democratic authors as a jobs engine, the bill offers extraordinary compensation for those who would lose their paycheck as a consequence of its passage.

Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill's "climate change worker adjustment assistance" program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019.

The bill passed the House a week ago in a hotly contested 219-212 vote, with supporters arguing that a principal reason to support the bill is that it would create millions of new jobs. But analyses from the political left and right argue that potentially millions of jobs in industries tied to traditional fossil fuels would be lost and, at least initially, not enough "green" jobs would be created to replace them.

Critics of the legislation seized on the unemployment compensation provision as proof that jobs would be lost.

"Can you name another jobs-creation bill that was so concerned about its potential impact that it preemptively included a benefits' program for the millions of workers it expected to displace?" asked Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-oil industry independent think tank.

"This provision is an indication the transition won't be as smooth and easy as supporters of the bill make it seem," agreed Matt Letourneau, a spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.

The nation's largest business group opposes the House bill approved last week but says it does support congressional action to deal with climate change issues.

While the analyses assume displaced workers will eventually find jobs, the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution predicts a net job loss of 0.5 percent over the first 10 years that carbon reduction legislation, called "cap-and-trade," is in effect. The conservative Heritage Foundation found that by 2030 net job losses would top 1.1 million, while the Coalition for Affordable American Energy, an industry group, estimates that more than 3 million jobs would be lost by 2030 as a result of the cap-and-trade system.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, California Democrat, wrote the displaced-worker provision into the bill. He said it would be necessary during the transition into "green-economy jobs."

"In a very important step, under our bill American workers will be able to take advantage of opportunities that will help them transition into the new sustainable careers of the future," Mr. Miller said.

Supporters of the bill say the unemployment provision is a "safety net" and they do not expect unemployed workers to have to use it, at least in large numbers.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Montana Will Fuel America’s Future

7/2/2009

by Webb Brown
President and CEO, Montana Chamber of Commerce

Have you ever searched your house from top to bottom for some missing keys, remote control or your wallet/purse only to realize it was right under your nose?

Webb Brown is the President and CEO of the Montana Chamber of Commerce. You can learn more at http://www.montanachamber.com

U.S. Chamber Calls House Climate Change Bill Wrong Approach to Slowing Emissions

6/26/2009

Contact: Eric Wohlschlegel, Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today expressed opposition to climate change legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, cautioning that it is an unrealistic approach that could further harm the economy and shed American jobs.

“The last thing this country needs is fourteen hundred new job-killing regulations and mandates,” said the Chamber’s Senior Vice President of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs William Kovacs. “The Chamber hopes, at some point, that Congress will find a way to balance the need for a strong U.S. economy while still addressing global climate change. Unfortunately, Congress has fallen short with this bill.”

“The American public deserves a robust, transparent debate on this legislation, which will raise fuel and electricity costs and have a negative impact on every family's budget,” said Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “Re-writing legislation in the middle of the night and then forcing a vote on it the next day is certainly not the right way to tackle this complicated issue.”

The “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (H.R. 2454), a 1,200-page behemoth consisting of a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, a federal renewable electricity mandate, and a suite of new mandatory energy efficiency standards, will impose 397 new federal regulations (which require traditional federal agency rulemakings) and 1060 new mandates on an American public already overwhelmed by extensive federal regulation. A chart of the bill’s regulations and mandates can be found at: http://www.uschamber.com/media/pdfs/waxmanmarkey.pdf.

“Despite the good intentions of this bill’s drafters to transition the U.S. to a ‘clean, green economy,’ H.R. 2454 still suffers from a large number of flaws,” continued Kovacs. “It fails to ensure that enough renewable or alternative energy sources, which include not only wind and solar but also nuclear and coal with carbon capture and sequestration, will be brought online to compensate for the fossil energy that will be de-selected by the bill’s aggressive caps. The Chamber’s website, http://www.projectnoproject.com, shows that it’s just as hard to get a permit to build a renewable energy facility as it is to build a fossil fuel-fired power plant.”

“There is a tremendous opportunity for America to enact sound energy policy that will promote economic growth and help transition to a low carbon future,” Harbert said. “Unfortunately, the legislation considered by the House misses the mark. Instead, the bill passed by the House mandates a complicated regulatory scheme that has failed in Europe and will result in fewer jobs, higher prices for consumers, and will place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage internationally,” she continued.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce estimates that the bill could result in annual drops in gross domestic product (GDP) of $170 billion in 2015, $350 billion in 2030, and $730 billion in 2050, and a net jobs loss of 2.3 million to 3 million—a figure that includes all the “green” jobs created. The Chamber this week wrote all members of the House expressing concern over the bill and suggested ways that the bill could be modified. The Chamber’s letter is available at:

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2009/090624_cleanenergy.htm.
The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

The Hill: Taxing Us Toward Energy Insecurity

6/23/2009

The following op/ed by Energy Institute President and CEO Karen Harbert appeared in The Hill newspaper.

As members of Congress begin working on a spending plan for next year, they are guided by a budget proposal from the administration that is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. The administration seeks to fund a significant increase in government spending by imposing more than $80 billion in new taxes and fees on America’s oil and gas industry — which would actually make us more dependent on foreign oil, raise consumer costs, and result in fewer jobs. These provisions should be rejected.

Raising taxes on oil and gas production is hardly a new idea. In 1980, Congress passed a so-called “windfall profits” tax. The results were counterproductive and, in fact, the amount of oil the U.S. imported rose by 13 percent. According to the Congressional Research Service, the tax increase reduced domestic production of oil and gas by as much as 8 percent. The taxes were later repealed in 1988 and viewed as such a failure that Phil Verlenger, who implemented the policy for the Carter administration, recently remarked that a windfall profits tax would be a “terrible idea today.” Yet the results of the administration’s proposal would mirror those from that failed endeavor.

All of the proposed taxes in next year’s budget have one thing in common: They increase the cost of producing oil and natural gas here at home. This creates a natural disincentive for companies to produce more domestic oil and gas resources since they would have to pay higher taxes if they do so. In some cases, it may even inhibit maintaining existing production levels. Absent a significant drop in demand, the most likely way that the resulting supply gap would be met is to import more oil. Today we import about 60 percent of the oil consumed in the United States, and history has proven increased taxes would only serve to increase that percentage.

As many of America’s policy leaders continue to urge “energy independence,” raising taxes and fees on oil and gas would result in the exact opposite effect. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on foreign imports, it also becomes more susceptible to the volatile price swings and potential supply disruption. Bluntly, the objective of increasing America’s energy security is undercut by these proposed new taxes.

Many of our trading partners have lowered corporate tax rates relative to the United States, which has the second highest effective corporate tax rate of all developed countries. Because energy is a critical underpinning for economic growth, the reduced cost to produce energy in these countries when compared to the higher costs of U.S. energy production through new taxes would clearly make the cost of doing business in America higher. These taxes would also shift a competitive advantage to foreign government-owned energy corporations whose operations are subsidized by their parent governments.

More oil and gas taxes also mean higher prices for consumers. Two of the largest uses of natural gas in the United States are for electricity generation and residential consumption. Since some of the tax increase would get passed on to the purchaser, it is likely that utility rates will increase at a time when American families can least afford it. A significant amount of natural gas produced domestically is used as a feedstock for the production of goods like plastics, chemicals and fertilizers.

Increased taxes would also lead to higher prices of goods, the effect of which will permeate the American economy. At the same time, nearly 6 million Americans have jobs tied to the oil and gas industry. Increasing the production costs of oil and gas via new taxes and fees place these jobs in jeopardy as firms of all sizes would look to reduce operating expenses or shift to overseas production opportunities.

Taxes, especially those that target one industry, are a deterrent to economic growth here at home. Rather than taking up failed policies of the past and making it tougher and more expensive for companies to produce American energy, the administration and Congress should support efforts to tap America’s abundant energy resources.

With more natural gas, nuclear, renewables and traditional fossil fuels produced here at home, our national leaders can spur the creation of new American jobs and economic opportunities, as well reduce our dependence on foreign oil and promote an environment that enables U.S. business to be more competitive in the global market. That’s a balanced energy policy everyone can and should support.

Harbert is president and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Higher Oil & Gas Taxes Lead to Energy Insecurity, Fewer Jobs According to New Energy Institute Report

6/19/2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – June 18, 2009

Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Imposing $80 billion in new taxes and fees on America’s oil and gas industry will increase our dependence on foreign oil, raise costs to consumers, jeopardize U.S. jobs and erode our economic competitiveness, according to a new report issued by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy today.

Congress is currently weighing a proposal by the Obama administration to levy new taxes and fees on the oil and natural gas industry as a way to finance significant increases in government spending.

“We need more American sources of energy, not less, and that requires a balanced approach that is both fair to producers and provides reliable and affordable energy to American families,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Energy Institute. “These new taxes run contrary to those fundamental principles.”

The report, “Taxing Our Way to Energy Insecurity Again,” reviews the impacts of a similar tax increase in the form of a windfall profits tax that was implemented in the 1980s. According to the Congressional Research Service, those tax increases led to as much as an eight percent decline in domestic production, and a 13 percent increase in oil imports.

New taxes and fees make the United States less attractive for new energy investment as compared to projects outside of the country, according to the report. Given that America currently imports 60 percent of its oil, discouraging investment in domestic oil and gas resources would increase reliance on foreign energy sources and place foreign government-owned corporations, some of whose operations are largely subsidized, at a competitive advantage.

The report points out that over six million people work in the oil and gas industry in America – a good portion of them in small and medium sized businesses. If companies are forced to reduce operating expenses to pay new taxes or fees, some of these good paying American jobs will be at risk or companies will shift to lower cost opportunities overseas.

“If Congress enacts these new taxes and fees, the industry is likely to shed American jobs, at the same time the government is spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to create and retain jobs,” Harbert said. “We think that’s a short-sighted approach to energy security and exactly the opposite of what the American economy needs, especially in these tough economic times.”
The report is available on the Institute’s website at www.energyxxi.org, along with a video reviewing its findings featuring Harbert.

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

Washington Times: Energy Panels OKs bill to Drill Offshore

6/18/2009

By: Edward Felker

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Wednesday approved an energy bill that would boost renewable energy use and expand offshore oil and gas drilling.

But the measure faces an uncertain future.

The committee, which met 11 times since late March to debate amendments, voted 15-8 to send the bill to the full Senate.

Chairman Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, called the bill "a solid piece of work" that reflected bipartisan viewpoints. Ranking member Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, lauded some of the pro-drilling provisions in the bill and said the measure will face a number of amendments on the Senate floor to expand nuclear power, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and other issues.

The bill was opposed by two Democrats. Democratic Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who sought greater offshore oil and gas royalty sharing with coastal states and a greater use of nuclear power, voted against it, as did Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He said the bill does not go far enough to promote renewable energy and does not protect homeowners from arbitrary transmission line-siting decisions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent, said he voted for the bill reluctantly because he considered the renewable energy mandate in the measure to be too weak and he planned to work to increase it on the Senate floor.

Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, said he would vote for the bill because it included a provision that allows states to keep penalties imposed when a state does not meet the renewable energy mandate.

Four Republicans voted for the bill: Mrs. Murkowski, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee.

The next step, however, is up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who may combine the legislation with a proposed global warming bill, which has not yet been produced in the Senate or by the full House.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy commended the committee for producing a comprehensive energy policy. It said the bill is not perfect but offers the chance to increase energy security, create jobs and improve the environment.

"This is not a perfect bill but overall this legislation is a positive step. It does not include oil and gas revenue sharing for states, and it contains a renewable electricity mandate that excludes some resources, like nuclear. It also doesn't recognize significant regional differences across our country. We look forward to working with the full Senate on these and other important issues in the coming months," said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the institute, in a statement.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

U.S. Chamber's Energy Institute: Senate Energy Bill Represents Real Progress

6/17/2009

Legislation Includes Several Key Institute Recommendations

Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, today issued the following statement following the completion of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s work on an energy bill:

“The bill reported out of the energy committee today represents real progress toward a comprehensive energy policy. It offers the chance to increase our energy security, create American jobs, and continue to improve the environment. Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski should be commended for their efforts to find consensus on several critical issues that deserve action by Congress.

“Since the election, the Institute has worked with committee members and staff to enact several very significant policy recommendations from our Blueprint for Securing America’s Energy Future. Specifically, the inclusion of a clean energy bank—such as the Clean Energy Deployment Administration included in the bill—will encourage substantial investments in nuclear and renewable energy technologies.

“The legislation also includes an Institute recommendation to clarify Section 526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act to ensure that oil sands from Canada can continue to be imported, an issue of particular importance to our energy security and to our largest energy trading partner.

“We also appreciate the committee’s approval of steps to aggressively promote energy efficiency; its specific endorsement of recycling as a potential solution to our nuclear waste challenge, as well as provisions that will open additional off-shore areas for oil and gas exploration that are currently off-limits.

“This is not a perfect bill. It does not include oil and gas revenue sharing for states, and it contains a renewable electricity mandate that excludes some renewable resources like nuclear and doesn't recognize significant regional differences across our country —but overall this legislation is a positive step. We look forward to working with the full Senate on these and other important issues in the coming months.”

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

Harbert Statement on Senate Oil Sands Amendment

6/9/2009

Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

In response to the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s adoption of an amendment that clarifies a 2007 procurement law (Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act) to ensure that America is able to purchase oil produced from Canadian oil sands, Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy issued the following statement:

“I commend the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for action today that ensures that oil obtained from Canadian oil sands will continue to be part of America’s energy mix. Every barrel of oil that we purchase from Canada is a barrel that we do not have to purchase from nations that do not share our security and economic interests. I’m pleased that progress has been made toward ensuring that our strong relationship with Canada continues and I hope that this amendment is enacted into law.”

June 2009 Newsletter

6/5/2009

Karen Harbert and former Governor Christie Todd Whitman debate John Podesta and James Woolsey on PBS as moderator Jim Angle of Fox News looks on.

Harbert with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at the Energy Institute’s May 13 Dialogue on Energy Security with America’s Business Leaders.

Harbert, Whitman Debate Podesta, Woolsey on PBS

Karen Harbert took part in a debate sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia on America’s energy future last month. The debate, which was moderated by Jim Angle of Fox News, considered the question of whether the U.S. must end its dependency on carbon based fuels.

Harbert and her teammate, former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman, debated former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and former CIA Director General James Woolsey. The debate was the fourth in the Miller Center’s National Debate and Discussion Series, which this year focused on “Priorities for the New President.”

Harbert maintained that the details of reducing our dependency on carbon based fuels are not inconsequential and the questions of “in what time frame, at what financial cost, and do we have real options on the table now to do it” are central to America’s energy future.

“I know we can reduce our dependence on imported oil and emissions from carbon-based fuels,” Harbert said in her opening remarks. “To solve our nation’s serious energy challenges requires a thoughtful and realistic transition to a low carbon future…but we need to do it in a way that doesn’t place unmanageable costs on American citizens and on American businesses, large and small.”

View the debate in its entirety or tune in to your local PBS affiliate to watch it in June. Washington, D.C. area viewers can catch it on WETA on Tuesday, June 16 at 10 p.m., Wednesday, June 17 at 2 p.m., Sunday, June 21 at 4 p.m. and Thursday, June 25 at 11 a.m.

News Roundup

Institute Convenes Business Leaders, Senior Government Officials to Discuss Energy and Climate Proposals: On May 13, the Institute for 21st Century Energy held A Dialogue on Energy Security with America’s Business Leaders featuring Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-M.D.). The speakers took questions from a panel of energy industry leaders and had a discussion about the implications of energy policy decisions on American businesses. Attendees also heard from Susan Eisenhower, who has just completed a national tour on electricity transmission. Watch the video of this event.
President Obama Announces New Fuel Economy Standards: In a move the White House admits could add up to $1300 to the cost of producing every new car, President Obama announced a national policy to increase fuel efficiency and thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under this standard, which will face a rule-making process, cars will need to achieve 39 miles per gallon by 2016, while trucks must achieve 30 mpg in the same timeframe for a combined fleet average of 35.5 mpg.
Institute Releases Waste Policy Report: Revisiting America’s Nuclear Waste Policy calls for the nation to commit to a permanent solution for America’s nuclear waste. It examines previous waste policy decisions, which to this point have failed to permanently store used nuclear fuel despite the designation of Yucca Mountain as the nation’s storage facility. Because economic and energy conditions have changed since the policy was first enacted in the 1980s, the report recommends a fresh look at options like interim storage sites and recycling, as well as moving waste policy management out of the Department of Energy to a government corporation. Read the Institute's press release about the report.

House Sends Waxman-Markey Bill to Eight Different Committees; Senate Readies Energy Legislation: On May 22, the House Energy and Commerce committee approved H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act legislation introduced by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) by a 33-25 vote. The legislation would impose a cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions, and will be the subject of intense debate this summer in both Houses of Congress. Polls continue to show that many Americans do not understand the complicated and costly scheme, and are not willing to pay higher energy prices. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has sent a letter to every Member of Congress calling for reducing emissions without hampering economic growth.

Meanwhile, across the Capitol, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee continued work on energy legislation that Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) hopes to take to the floor. The committee defeated an amendment to strike a Renewable Electricity Standard from the Chairman’s bill despite arguments that a “one-size fits all” national mandate would disproportionately burden certain states and would not actually increase the use of renewables. The issue is expected to be raised again during floor debate. The Committee still has several dozen of amendments to consider over the coming weeks.

While the Waxman-Markey climate legislation cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it still may have several hurdles to clear before making it to the House floor. As many as eight other House Committees could consider the bill, including the Ways and Means Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has been particularly emphatic that his committee must have a chance to review and re-write parts of the bill. As reported by Politico, Peterson told reporters that “This stuff is going no place in the Senate…They can do whatever they want with this, but I can tell you, there is no way this is going to pass.” Peterson and other farm-state lawmakers are concerned that the bill will raise prices on goods and transportation for the agriculture industry.

EI Takes Its Message to Europe

The Energy Institute’s Karen Harbert and Stephen Eule ended a busy May with separate trips to Europe to continue the Institute’s goal of promoting a fact based discussion on energy and climate issues.

Harbert was the sole American speaker at the BMW Foundation's Annual Economic Summit in Munich, Germany while Eule participated in a business workshop in Brussels, Belgium to discuss the U.S. business community’s views on global energy challenges and international climate change negotiations sponsored by the Atlantic Council and Clingendael International Energy Program, in cooperation with the Energy Institute.

Harbert told an assembled group of EU government officials, economists, journalists, and academics that the United States has already made considerable progress on reducing carbon emissions without a mandatory framework such as cap and trade. In fact, she noted that according to UN data, from 2000-2006, the U.S. reduced its net greenhouse gas emissions by 3 percent, while the European Union achieved a reduction of only 0.1%. Only France saw a reduction greater than America during that time period, in part because of their predominate use of nuclear power.

The Munich summit featured a robust discussion about the ways in which governments can seek to reduce emissions through advanced technology and other incentives. Harbert emphasized that the targets set by governments must be realistic, and the focus of the discussion should be on technology solutions, policies and investments needed for a clean energy future.

While Harbert was in Germany, Eule made a similar case to workshop attendees in Belgium. Eule took part in a panel discussion about the standards and regulations used by governments in the U.S. and Europe to reduce emissions. The event was the first in a series of workshops planned by the Atlantic Council and Clingendael to expand the transatlantic discussion on creating common, compatible, and complementary efforts to transform energy sectors of the U.S. and Europe to ensure sustainability and energy security.

The Energy Institute’s international outreach efforts are becoming increasingly more important as the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen nears. In fact, next the Institute's Stephen Eule will participate in clmate negotiations in Bonn, Germany. Stay tuned to our newsletter and blog for updates.

Illinois Energy to Jobs
by Doug Whitley
President and CEO, Illinois Chamber of Commerce

Nothing is more fundamental to a healthy economy, both in Illinois or across America, than having reliable sources of energy. It is needed in every business and every home. Its availability and cost profoundly affect every aspect of our economy -- the private and public sectors, our families and our overall quality of life.

Because energy demand is going to increase dramatically both in Illinois and across the globe, no one energy source is going to satisfy that demand. We believe there are three elements to our energy solution — efficiency, alternative energies and conventional sources such as nuclear, natural gas, crude oil and coal fuels — and there are economic development opportunities with each.

The Illinois Chamber of Commerce is an advocate for policies that support what we refer to as the “and” approach to energy . The “and” approach to energy policy states that it’s not about whether coal or wind or nuclear or biofuels or natural gas or biomass or crude oil or solar or battery cells will fuel our economy, it’s about the reality that we’re going to need coal and wind and nuclear and biofuels and natural gas and biomass and crude oil and solar and battery cells and other sources to meet the current and future energy needs that propel our economy and sustain our quality of life.

We in Illinois enjoy an energy base that includes one of the largest coal reserves in the world, the most nuclear generating plants of any state, a convergence of natural gas and crude oil pipelines, five area oil refineries, farmland for biofuels, ample wind for electrical generation, a robust electricity transmission system and much more.

Look, for example, at our use of nuclear power to generate electricity. We typically produce one-tenth of all the nuclear power generated in the United States right here in Illinois. We produce nearly one-half of the electricity used within our state with nuclear power, and we generate enough power to be a leading exporter of electricity to other states. Nuclear power is emissions free and is a reliable and affordable energy source. It’s also a solid economic engine, creating hundreds of high-paying jobs in a local community. Quite simply, nuclear power has worked in Illinois.

But that’s just the beginning. We believe Illinois has the opportunity to become one of the nation’s key energy centers. New wind, clean coal, nuclear, biofuel, pipeline, smart grid and other energy projects, such as making homes and businesses more energy efficient, could pump hundreds of millions of dollars into local communities, create thousands of jobs and create a reliable energy supply for Illinois consumers.

In short, we’ll need all kinds of energy solutions and each one has the potential to create jobs here in Illinois and all across the country.

There are projects underway across Illinois providing a glimpse of the economic promise energy investment holds. The Prairie State Energy Campus under construction in Washington County is expected to create 450 permanent jobs, employ up to 2,500 workers during peak construction and inject more than $2.8 billion into economy over the first three decades in operation. A solar panel manufacturing plant and solar farm that would generate enough electricity to power 3,300 homes is planned for Rockford. It is estimated to generate 200 high-paying jobs. If you’d had the opportunity to drive around Illinois lately, it’s hard to miss the wind farm construction, creating jobs across the state. Energy projects like these and the promise of FutureGen in Coles County help Illinois strengthen its position as an energy leader – a position that will help our economy today, tomorrow and for years to come.

But to realize the full potential of these kinds of projects, we must create a business and regulatory environment that encourages new energy investment. That’s something we’re advocating for in Illinois, and it’s something that is needed all across America. With the help of advocates like the Institute for 21st Century Energy, we know that can become a reality, transforming Illinois and American energy into jobs all across the nation.

Doug Whitley is the President and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. You can learn more at http://www.ilchamber.org/

The Month Ahead

Rahall May Seek to Add News Fees on Exploration to Climate Change Bill: House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) has released draft legislation that would raise royalty rates and fine companies that do not produce fast enough on leases (so called “diligent development"). News reports say that Rahall may seek to add the bill to the Waxman-Markey climate legislation. This troubling proposal would discourage domestic production of oil and gas by increasing operational costs that will ultimately be passed on to consumers. American companies already make substantial investments in exploration with no guarantee that they will find oil or gas. Increasing royalty rates and imposing “diligent development” rules (even though the current federal law is already “use it or lose it” when it comes to holding leases) will likely have a chilling effect on continued exploration, resulting in an increased reliance on foreign oil.
Summer Driving Season Bringing Higher Prices: As you probably noticed, along with the temperature, gasoline prices have also started climbing. At press time, the average price was approaching $2.50 a gallon—far short of the $4 a gallon gas we saw last summer, but still a significant increase from this winter’s prices. As usual, one of the culprits is the annual switchover from winter crude blends to summer crude oil, which causes refining capacity to fall as refineries make the switch. In addition, basic supply and demand plays a role—with kids getting out of school, more drivers are hitting the road and taking vacations and using more gasoline. Investment activity has also ticked up. The rise in prices is a good time to remember that despite strong public support for tapping America’s energy resources and the lifting of previous production bans, the federal government has done virtually nothing to increase domestic production—leaving us just as vulnerable as ever to major spikes in prices.
Just a Few More Weeks to Submit Comments on EPA’s Endangerment Finding: The period for submitting comments on EPA’s endangerment finding will end on June 23. Meanwhile, a recent memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget underscores concerns that many inside and outside of the federal government have with the finding. The memo states, in part, “Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities…The finding should also acknowledge the EPA has not undertaken a systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis.”
Energy Institute to Provide Analysis of Oil and Gas Taxes, Clean Energy Bank: Following the release of the Institute’s report on nuclear waste, look for new analysis on the proposed oil and gas taxes, and their impact on U.S. imports, jobs, and competitiveness this month. In addition, the Institute will release new analysis to reinforce our call for Congress and the Administration to establish a clean energy bank to increase financial support for deploying new clean energy technologies. As always, the reports will be available on the Institute’s website at www.energyxxi.org

EVENTS
6/8-12/09 Steve Eule will represent the Energy Institute at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Bonn, Germany

6/8/09 Christopher Guith will deliver keynote remarks at the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce’s Energy and Manufacturing Summit, which also features U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Greensboro, NC

6/9/09 Karen Harbert will appear at the Research Triangle Institute’s Fellowship Seminar on Effective Global Climate Change Policies
Washington, DC

6/19/09 Christopher Guith will be on a panel at the workshop, “Formulation of Energy and Climate Policy: Toward an Open and Transparent Process”, co-hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center and Howard Baker Center
Washington, DC

6/19/09 Karen Harbert is scheduled to participate on a panel at the American Bar Association conference, "Legal Challenges and Solutions for the Green Economy"
Denver, CO

6/22/09 Christopher Guith will deliver a speech on the future of nuclear energy policy at the Ludlum Users Group Meeting
San Antonio, TX

6/24/09 Karen Harbert will be on panel at the CQ Forum on Climate Change Policy and Manufacturing
Washington, DC

6/29/09 Steve Eule will be on a panel at the Canada Institute’s Canadian Deputy Ministers Briefing
Washington, DC

Illinois Energy to Jobs

6/1/2009

by Doug Whitley
President and CEO, Illinois Chamber of Commerce

Doug Whitley is the President and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. You can learn more at http://www.ilchamber.org/

Times of London: Bold Targets Set for Global Warming Experts Pose Threat to Action

5/30/2009

Gary Duncan, Economics Editor

Achieving a workable international deal to tackle climate change successfully is being threatened by overambitious targets set for the world conference on global warming this year, experts said yesterday.

Anxieties over whether a viable and effective agreement to combat global warming can be secured in Copenhagen in December will be fuelled by the concerns voiced yesterday at the annual Munich Economic Summit, supported by The Times.

Carlo Carraro, Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Venice, led warnings that overly demanding goals set by governments worldwide for the Copenhagen gathering could doom to failure any deal struck there.

Professor Carraro said his research suggested that the key target set for Copenhagen — cutting the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 550 parts per million (ppm) by 2100 — could be achieved only if the summit secured a “grand coalition” of Western nations with big emerging market countries, including China and India.

However, he said that China and India were prominent among nations that faced strong economic incentives to spurn an agreement and try to act as “free-riders”, leaving developed countries to shoulder the burden of tackling climate change.

Professor Carraro’s concerns were echoed by other leading participants at the international debate on climate and energy in Munich, organised by the CESIfo think-tank based in the Bavarian capital, and the BMW Foundation Herbert Quandt.

Karen Harbert, the chief executive of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the US Chamber of Commerce, said that an American medium-term goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 14 per cent less than 2005 levels would mean cutting these by a “gigaton”.

That, she said, was the equivalent of the United States building 320 new “zero emission” 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants, or 130 new nuclear power stations. It would also imply America cutting the intensity of its carbon emissions to levels equal to those in present-day Bangladesh.

ENTIRE ARTICLE

Deseret News: Report Calls for Nuclear Waste Storage Solution

5/28/2009

By Amy Joi O'Donoghue

A new report calls for a permanent solution for the nation's safe storage of nuclear waste because the push for clean energy has placed renewed emphasis on nuclear power and the waste that goes with it.

"Revisiting America's Nuclear Waste Policy" notes that 2,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel are generated by U.S. reactors each year, to add to the more than 70,000 tons of spent fuel and other high-level waste already being stored at 121 sites in 39 states.

Moreover, 20 companies have submitted applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 26 new nuclear reactors in the next decade.

"With the needed expansion of nuclear power, the amount of used fuel produced will also increase," the report said. "The time is ripe for a permanent solution."

The report, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, notes that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is not the "only" solution, but asks if not there, where?

"Yucca Mountain has been studied and characterized for more than three decades, and it has been found to be the safest and best option for disposing of the country's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste given the parameters of U.S. law," the report said.

It notes the federal government's legal obligation to store and ultimately dispose of nuclear waste has taken a new turn with the Obama administration's proposed budget, which eliminates Yucca Mountain as a repository option and provides very little funding for the Department of Energy to pursue alternatives.

Given those actions, "the future of U.S. nuclear waste policy is as murky as any point in our long history of commercial nuclear power."

The report notes that since 1998, more than 40 commercial reactors have exceeded existing storage capacity and have been forced to purchase expensive dry storage systems to safely store the excess fuel.

"It is expected that approximately 90 reactors will have exhausted existing pool storage capacity by 2010 and will have to begin external dry storage."

With Obama's opposition to Yucca Mountain firm, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said he will form a blue ribbon panel to review current policy and explore options.

To that end, the national report makes several recommendations, including:

ENTIRE ARTICLE

Energy Institute Calls for Permanent Solution for America's Nuclear Waste

5/27/2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 27, 2009

Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a new report issued today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy called on the Obama administration to commit to a permanent solution for the nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

The report, titled Revisiting America’s Nuclear Waste Policy, examines the nation’s nuclear waste policies which to this point have failed to remove used fuel stored in 39 states.

“Yucca Mountain has been demonstrated to be the best solution under current law, but is by no means the only solution for managing America’s nuclear waste,” said Christopher Guith, the Institute’s Vice President for Policy. “If the Obama administration and Congress plan to change course after 30 years of independent scientific review and billions in investment, they have a legal responsibility to the American people and utilities that have paid more than $28 billion in fees and interest to immediately craft a workable long-term solution.”

The Institute also examines the scientific, economic, and security challenges in its report, and offers recommendations to the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress to safely manage the nation’s current and future nuclear waste. The entire report may be viewed at www.energyxxi.org

Specifically, the report recommends that our national leaders consider the following priorities to put America on a long-term path for safe nuclear waste disposal, including:

• Move management of the nation’s waste plan from DOE to an outside entity—such as a government corporation—with access to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
• Begin siting and licensing centralized interim storage locations for used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, which currently sit in 121 locations in 39 states, on DOE sites and/or other sites that have expressed interest in temporarily storing the used fuel.
• Close the nuclear fuel cycle to harness the energy in used fuel, lessen the volume of waste, and reduce security risks and determine what technologies and timelines should be employed.
• Fully fund the Yucca Mountain license application process and gain knowledge and insight into permanent repository.
• Evaluate the retrievability requirement in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act for waste disposed in a permanent repository and consider other mediums and locations with fewer political, regulatory, scientific, or economic obstacles.
• Consider whether utilities should continue paying a nuclear waste fee and consider depositing the fees in a private escrow account.

“As an emissions-free, reliable technology, nuclear energy will continue to play a key role in addressing climate change concerns and meeting demand with affordable and reliable electricity,” Guith said. “The time is ripe to revisit our plans for managing the growing volume of used nuclear fuel and to finally commit to a workable plan.”

The U.S. Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.

UVA Today: Expenses and Effects the Focus of Miller Center Debate on America's Energy Future

5/14/2009

May 14, 2009 – America must move away from its dependency on carbon-based fuels – our national security and economic and environmental stability depend on it.

So argued John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, and James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, at a debate co-sponsored by the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs.

Thursday's debate on America's energy future was the fourth and final event of "Priorities of a New President," the 2009 season of the National Discussion and Debate Series.

Podesta and Woolsey debated Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, and Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, on the resolution: "The United States must end its dependency on carbon-based fuels."

The debate, moderated by Jim Angle, chief Washington correspondent for FOX News Channel, took place in front of a live audience at U.Va.'s Newcomb Hall.

In his opening remarks, Podesta, who currently serves as president of the Center for American Progress, advocated more efficient energy use. "We need to move from polluting fossil fuels to get off that dependence [on carbon-based fuels]… to clean, renewable energy."

He added that clean energy development not only slows climate change, but "it creates four times as many jobs in the United States as the production of oil."

However, at our current rate of development, we are falling behind the rest of the world. "China today is spending $12.6 million an hour on clean energy technologies," he said. " … Japan and Europe are already well ahead of us. Germany – not known for being a sunshine country – is one of the leading countries on solar installments."

Harbert countered that such aspirations are admirable, but that the real-world implications, such as time and money, are the key determining factors.

"The devil's in the details," she said. "In what timeframe are we talking about? At what cost? And do we have the real options on the table that we need right now?"

Harbert cited solar and wind energy as examples: "Currently, they comprise less than 2 percent of our nation's electricity supply, so even if we tripled them overnight, we still need to find sources for that other 95 percent of our electricity demand and for our transportation needs."

Opening up America's oil and gas reserves, using nuclear energy and coal, and being more energy-efficient are all pieces of the puzzle, she said.

Woolsey, a partner in VantagePoint Venture Partners, expressed concern about the connection between oil consumption and national security.

"Eight of the nine top exporters of oil in the world are autocratic kingdoms or dictatorships," he said, adding that Americans' dependence on foreign oil is funding madrassas in the Middle East. "Next time you're in a filling station, before you get out to get your credit card, turn the rearview mirror just a couple of inches so you're looking into your own eyes," Woolsey said. "Now you know who is paying for those little 8-year-old Pakistani and Palestinian boys to become suicide bombers."

Whitman, currently president of the Whitman Strategy Group, argued that an economy that's totally independent of fossil fuels is unrealistic. Americans need to be open to many options, including nuclear energy, but "there's no silver bullet. There are going to have to be a variety of different sources of energy that we use over time."

Woolsey countered that turning to nuclear energy is too expensive to be feasible, in addition to the public's apprehension about another Three Mile Island incident or the proliferation of weapons.

"We do not want the United States with pro-nuclear policy," he said. "Particularly one that extends to exports to become the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear proliferation by traveling around the world putting in light water reactors, nuclear power plants, selling them and having people get into the business of nuclear weapons."

Harbert worried that some alternative energy proposals might hurt an already suffering economy, and argued that focusing on domestic prospects instead would be more viable.

"Some of the proposals we're talking about will pose unnecessary and burdensome costs on American business, which will drive our businesses overseas, our jobs overseas, and we will not be a competitive economy," she said. "… If we were to develop more resources here at home, the laws of supply and demand dictate that actually we would have more supply and prices would go down."

Citing the 9/11 Commission Report, Whitman argued that nuclear energy is subjected to very high production and containment standards.

"Chemical plants rated above nuclear plants as likely targets for terrorists because they were less secure and more able to create the kind of explosion that they wanted to see, rather than try to get a rod out in order to be able to use it," she said. Nuclear energy is pricey, Podesta argued – but it reduces CO2 emissions, Harbert countered.

The debaters also discussed cap-and-trade policy, natural gas as a possible bridge to using more renewables, individual choices about energy efficiency, land use and development, and the role of the private sector in energy innovation.

During her closing remarks, Whitman admitted that alternative energy will cost more and that decision-makers will need to be thoughtful in how they allocate their money and efforts. "And if we also got into this discussion thinking that somehow we can get free air, wind or water and it's not going to cost us anything because God made it or nature made it … we're kidding ourselves," she said.

In response, Podesta contended that all Americans must turn their attention to low-carbon energy now rather than later. "That's not a job for the next group of leaders, for the next President, for the next Congress," he said. "That's a job for this president, for this Congress, and all of us in this room and around the country."

Read entire story

—By Kim Curtis

May 2009 Newsletter

5/8/2009


Karen Harbert, Energy Institute President & CEO, addresses the Missouri Energy Summit	Energy Institute holds second "Energy Realities and Opportunities" Capitol Hill Briefing with Brookings Institution

Energy News Roundup

Clean Energy Bank Proposal Gains Traction: While the Institute believes that it is vitally important to develop new clean energy technologies, research and development alone won't help us meet our energy challenges unless they are commercially deployed. A major obstacle to advanced technology use is the lack of financing for many projects that are otherwise ready for action. Deployment of first of a kind technologies presents unique risks that deter private investment. For that reason, the Institute was pleased that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on April 28 to receive testimony on the 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act (S.949).

The bill, authored by Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), would create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration at the Department of Energy. The entity would offer a variety of financial services to clean energy projects, which is largely consistent with one of the 88 policy recommendations the Energy Institute made to then President-elect Obama and the new Congress. The Institute has advocated for a federally-backed entity with the authority to issue loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, insurance, and other financial products to help support deployment of advanced clean energy technologies.
Federal Appeals Court Halts MMS Five Year Plan: A federal appeals court in Washington threw out the Department of Interior's Five Year Plan for Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing on April 17 after it was challenged by environmental groups. The plan, which was supported by the Energy Institute, cleared the way for development of offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the east coast in order to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. The decision will most likely significantly delay offshore development.
DOE Announces Funding Opportunities for ARPA-E Research Agency: Last week the Obama administration announced $400 million to launch the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program that will award grants to recipients for the development of breakthrough energy technologies. In its Transition Plan for Securing America's Energy Future , last fall the Institute recommended that the administration establish, and Congress fund, the ARPA-E program or its equivalent to assess, prioritize, select, and support high-risk, exploratory research on innovative concepts and enabling technologies to transform America's energy economy. The Institute encourages DOE to make ARPA-E funding decisions through a merit-based competitive process.
Congress Passes FY2010 Budget: The House and Senate approved a $3.6 trillion FY 2010 budget proposal that was supported by the Obama administration. (The Administration's FY2010 budget for the Department of Energy is available here .) Congress has begun the FY2010 Appropriations process which should shed light on the administration's priorities. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce expressed serious concerns with the budget proposal, including harmful energy taxes. The Chamber and other groups were successful in arguing that a provision to circumvent debate on cap and trade should not be included in the budget.
Waxman-Markey Hearings Highlight Sharp Divides on Cap and Trade: The draft legislation circulated by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was silent on the thorniest issues (such as emissions allowances), but that didn't stop the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee from holding a week long hearing that featured over 80 witnesses from all sides of the climate debate. While witnesses ranging from Al Gore to Newt Gingrich presented their views to the subcommittee, by week's end proponents of the legislation appeared to be no closer to passing a bill. However, Representative Waxman announced that he will bypass the subcommittee and bring it directly to the full committee in order to meet his Memorial Day goal for completing committee work on the bill. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Capitol, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged that Democrats currently lack the 60-votes necessary to pass cap and trade.
EPA Issues Endangerment Finding: As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a draft finding that states that CO₂poses a threat to public health and welfare. Although the EPA did not issue regulations with the finding, the move does open the door to issuing regulations down the line. The next step in the process is a 60-day public comment period that is open until June 23, 2009. Some has speculated that the action was taken to help spur Congressional action, in part because regulating carbon under the Clean Air Act would prove to be difficult and would be subject to legal challenges that could take a long time.

Harbert Addresses Missouri Energy Summit, Unveils "Climate 101" Fact Sheet and Video

On April 22 (Earth Day), Institute President and CEO Karen Harbert addressed a capacity crowd of over 1,200 at the University of Missouri System's Energy Summit held at the University's Columbia campus. The summit also featured T. Boone Pickens, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, and industry and academic leaders.
Harbert told the group that America's economic, environmental, and national security depend on affordable and reliable energy, which is why America's leaders must adopt a fresh approach.

"At this critical juncture, we need extraordinary new partnerships, new instruments and new players to set the course for solving our nation's energy challenges. This requires a new paradigm - a new model - to bring the best of the business community, the best of academia, and the best of local, state and federal government together to harness our nation's deep well of innovation to allow us to lead America and the world to a more secure, clean, and prosperous energy future," she said.

The full text of Harbert's speech is available here.

While at the summit, Harbert unveiled the Energy Institute's latest effort to educate the public about issues that will impact their family budgets. The Institute's "Climate 101" fact sheet defines commonly used terms and answers to frequently asked questions about the climate debate that will likely dominate Washington this summer.

In addition, Stephen Eule, the Institute's Vice President for Climate and Technology, recorded a video to accompany the fact sheet. The video and fact sheet were distributed to local and regional chambers of commerce, as well as Capitol Hill staff and reporters.

Energy Institute and Brookings Institution Hold Briefing on Carbon Capture and Sequestration
The Institute for 21st Century Energy and the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings hosted the second in a series of quarterly Capitol Hill briefings on May 4. The briefing, titled "Energy Realities & Opportunities: Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology (CCS)," was hosted by Karen Harbert of the Institute and Dr. Charles Ebinger of Brookings.

The event assembled industry representatives who are working to bring CCS technology to the marketplace, including John Torkington, Senior Advisor on Chevron's Gorgon Project in Austrailia, Ben Yamagata, Executive Director of the Coal Utilization Research Council, and Steve Moorman of The Babcock and Wilcox Company. Also included were reglatory expert Brent Fewell of Hunton and Williams, LLP, and a top academic expert, Dr. M. Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University. The group shared their experiences and discussed the outlook for CCS in front of an assembled group of Hill staff, reporters, and others interested in the topic.

Views from the States

To help provide greater context to the energy discussion, every month we will feature a commentary from a local Chamber of Commerce highlighting how energy issues impact their region. These local Chambers are on the forefront of the energy debate, as their members businesses deal everyday with the affects of energy policies implemented, or not implemented in many cases, in Washington.

If your Chamber would like to submit your view to be published in the Energy Institute's newsletter, contact Nate Bailey at nbailey@uschamber.com

By Wayne Stevens
President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce

Alaskans know an awful lot about America's energy supplies and America's energy demands. Our vast and sweeping state holds bountiful resources that could be harnessed to help improve America's energy security. Alaska has abundant resources of oil, gas, and coal that could be developed in a responsible and respectful manner. Unfortunately, too many in the lower 48 believe they have the right to restrict how Alaska uses its resources. This is bad for Alaska's economy, and it is bad for America.

Let's look closely at some examples. Offshore oil and gas production could begin immediately in Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Cook Inlet and the North Aleutian Basin in Bristol Bay. Alaskans would welcome the economic development that would come from starting these projects, and America would welcome this new, secure source of oil. We already have the highest yielding oil field in America at Prudhoe Bay on Alaska's North Slope. It produces more than 400,000 barrels per day. We should expand upon this production immediately, making America less reliant on oil-producing countries that are not friendly to our nation.

Likewise, it's time for action in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). In Washington, politicians like to parade out photos of caribou walking down a mountain and pronounce that such a scene "is ANWR." While those picturesque locales are found in ANWR, they are not found near any of the proposed exploration locations. We can, and truly we must, harness our resources and protect our environment at the same time. With the litany of technological advances the oil industry has made over the past decade, there is absolutely no reason that we cannot tap into our natural resources while protecting our natural environment. Alaskans are more protective of our beautiful state than anyone else in America; we simply would not support proposals that are not in the best interests of our state, our environment and our people.

Read Entire Article

The Month Ahead

Energy Institute to Release Policy Analysis: In the month of May, the Energy Institute will release new policy analysis on two major issues facing the Administration and Congress: nuclear waste policy and the impact of taxes on domestic energy. As always, the analysis will be available on the Institute's website at http://www.energyxxi.org/.
Blue Ribbon Panel on Nuclear Waste Could be Coming Soon: Following the Obama administration's announcement that Yucca Mountain would no longer be an option for nuclear waste disposal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced his intention tocreate a Blue Ribbon panel to recommend policy options moving forward. Although the announcement was made in March, the administration has not yet released details. In addition, several members of Congress have introduced legislation creating such a panel, and the idea may be included in the Senate Energy Committee's package. The Institute is releasing a report entitled "Revisiting Our Nuclear Waste Policy," which contains recommendations and background information that will be of use to the panel.
EPA Holding Public Hearings and Accepting Comments on Endangerment Finding: EPA is holding two public hearings and is accepting public comments until June 23, 2009 on its proposed Endangerment Finding. The hearings will be held on May 18 at the EPA Potomac Yards Conference Center in Arlington, VA and on May 21 at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA. In addition, public comments can be emailed to GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov.
Committee Action Could Shape Direction of Climate and Energy Debate: At press time, it is unclear how House Democrats plan to proceed with the Waxman-Markey discussion draft, after initial plans to hold a markup of the bill during the first week of May were scuttled. Many members, including some Democrats, have called for more details regarding emissions allowances and other aspects of the bill. Representative Rick Boucher (D-WV), a key coal-state Democrat, has reportedly been actively engaged in negotiations with Chairman Waxman.
Across the Capitol in the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to take up several difficult issues in an effort to finalize an energy bill. Following an April 30 walkthrough of Chairman Jeff Bingaman's transmission siting proposal, the committee is set to mark-up the bill next week. Also on track for a mark-up is the Clean Energy Deployment Administration proposal. Following action on those two bills, the Energy Committee may consider a Renewable Electricity Standard, but at press time those plans have been placed on hold.

Energy Fast Facts

AAA Average Gas Price
Today: $2.17
One Month Ago: $2.04
One Year Ago: $3.61
Summer Projection: $2.23
AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report

US Liquid Fuel Consumption for 2009
Projected to decrease by 2.2 percent to 19 million barrels per day
EIA Short Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook

US Electricity Consumption
for 2009
Projected to decrease by 1.6 percent to 10.51 billion kilowatt hours per day
EIA Short Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook

Alaska Crude Oil Production in 2009
21.8 million barrels per month, 15 percent of total U.S. production
EIA State Energy Profile - Alaska

5/13/09 The Energy Institute will host "A Dialogue on Energy Security with America's Business Leaders"
Washington, DC

5/14/09 Karen Harbert will participate in the National Discussion and Debate Series, hosted by the University of Virginia and PBS. Fellow debaters will include John Podesta, James Woolsey, and Christine Todd Whitman
Charlottesville, VA

5/28/09 Karen Harbert is scheduled to speak at the BMW Foundation's Annual Munich Economic Summit
Munich, Germany

5/28-29/09 Steve Eule will be a featured speaker at the U.S.-EU Workshop on a Shared Vision for Energy and Climate Change, a joint project of the Atlantic Council of the United States and the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael, in cooperation with the Institute for 21st Century Energy
Brussels, Belgium

Alaska State Chamber of Commerce

5/6/2009

By Wayne Stevens
President/CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce

Alaskans know an awful lot about America’s energy supplies and America’s energy demands. Our vast and sweeping state holds bountiful resources that could be harnessed to help improve America’s energy security. Alaska has abundant resources of oil, gas, and coal that could be developed in a responsible and respectful manner. Unfortunately, too many in the lower 48 believe they have the right to restrict how Alaska uses its resources. This is bad for Alaska’s economy, and it is bad for America.

Let’s look closely at some examples. Offshore oil and gas production could begin immediately in Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Cook Inlet and the North Aleutian Basin in Bristol Bay. Alaskans would welcome the economic development that would come from starting these projects, and America would welcome this new, secure source of oil. We already have the highest yielding oil field in America at Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope. It produces more than 400,000 barrels per day. We should expand upon this production immediately, making America less reliant on oil-producing countries that are not friendly to our nation.

Likewise, it’s time for action in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). In Washington, politicians like to parade out photos of caribou walking down a mountain and pronounce that such a scene “is ANWR.” While those picturesque locales are found in ANWR, they are not found near any of the proposed exploration locations. We can, and truly we must, harness our resources and protect our environment at the same time. With the litany of technological advances the oil industry has made over the past decade, there is absolutely no reason that we cannot tap into our natural resources while protecting our natural environment. Alaskans are more protective of our beautiful state than anyone else in America; we simply would not support proposals that are not in the best interests of our state, our environment and our people.

A major priority of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce is to ensure that substantive progress toward construction of a natural gas pipeline happens in 2009. Moving the permitting process forward will allow construction and design to stay on a reasonable timeline toward gas flowing to market by 2018. Alaska already has the United States’ largest producing oil pipeline, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which can pump up to1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day. We need the same infrastructure to move our natural gas resources effectively and efficiently.

But oil and gas are not the only things Alaska has to offer. Our rivers could provide some of the best locations for hydroelectric power generation in America. Our sweeping coasts offer strong winds and high-potential geothermal energy. These too should be harnessed to improve the supply of energy across the country.

Because Alaska is such a large state with limited infrastructure, we know how to best use what is available to us and use it efficiently. We are going to continue to move forward on a rational and balanced energy policy. We hope that the rest of the country will join with us in that effort and not stand in our way. It truly is in everyone's best interest. And with the help of strong groups like the Institute for 21st Century Energy, we can make that goal a reality.

Wayne Stevens is the President/CEO of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. You can learn more at their website http://www.alaskachamber.com. The views expressed in this article represent his own.

Institute's Harbert Applauds Progress on Clean Energy Bank

4/28/2009

Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, today issued the following statement regarding the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee’s hearing this morning on legislation to establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA):

“The Senate Energy Committee is to be commended for this timely proposal that will increase America’s supply of clean energy and does not rely on two of Washington’s most common tendencies: more mandates and more money.

“The creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration has the potential to be the single greatest action the government can take to increase our energy security while improving the environment. By injecting much-needed capital into clean energy projects, a clean energy bank like the one proposed will help us deploy near-term technologies that are currently suffering from market inefficiencies. I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and others in Congress to pass this into law.”

In November, the Institute for 21st Century Energy issued 88 specific policy recommendations to President-elect Obama and the new Congress. The creation of a quasi-government Clean Energy Bank designed to accelerate the market penetration of advanced clean energy technologies was one of the Institute’s recommendations.

The Institute has advocated for a federally-backed entity with the authority to issue loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, insurance, and other financial products to help support deployment of advanced clean energy technologies. The bank would become self-financing through fees and interest. Today’s hearing follows the release of a joint-staff draft of CEDA legislation.

Energy Institute Releases Climate Change 101 Fact Sheet and Video on Earth Day

4/22/2009

Contact: Matt Letourneau 202-463-5945

On the occasion of Earth Day, the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, today continued its efforts to educate the public about current policy issues and their potential implications by releasing a Climate Change 101 fact sheet and video.

“Because today is Earth Day, the media is focusing extra attention on steps we can take to help our environment. I think it is fair to say that everyone wants to be involved in a national discussion on energy and climate change. And every American must have this opportunity because every household, every business large and small, every academic institution, and every sector of the economy has a lot at stake when it comes to the climate change debate,” said Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Harbert will discuss the Institute’s education efforts during an address at the University of Missouri System’s Energy Summit, where she will highlight energy and climate change realities and opportunities for American businesses and consumers.

The Energy Institute’s fact sheet and video is available at www.energyxxi.org for local and regional chambers of commerce as well as Congressional staff and those interested in learning more about climate change policy.

Columbia Daily Tribune: Experts Lend Power to Event

4/22/2009

Research, Policy Discussions Will Fill Schedule

By: Janese Heavin

There’s a lot of energy today on the University of Missouri’s Columbia campus, where national experts, researchers and innovators are coming together to discuss the future of nuclear power, oil, coal technologies and renewable resources.

The University of Missouri’s first Missouri Energy Summit kicked off at noon at Jesse Hall, where Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens was scheduled to address a sold-out audience. Panelists, guest speakers and roughly 560 registered participants will then spend the rest of today and tomorrow discussing energy research and policy issues.

Coal, solar and wind technologies are up for discussion, but nuclear energy will likely be a focal point as AmerenUE continues to plan for a second reactor at the Callaway County power plant. Although the debate over how to fund the plant continues, the need for more nuclear power is clear, said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy.

“By choosing to expand nuclear power, you continue to keep jobs in Missouri, and it has tangible benefits for the environment because it’s an emissions-free source of energy,” Harbert said. “We do need more wind and solar, and I know Missouri is pursing that with the rest of the country.

“But even if we double or triple our use of those renewable sources of electricity, it will yield less than 10 percent of the utility demand in this country.

“Over the long term, certainly we need new technologies, but we can’t shut down the electric grid while we wait for new technologies while we have technologies readily available today.”
Harbert, who was scheduled to speak during today’s events, commended MU for hosting the summit, which she said is unique because it’s bringing together not only energy experts, but also academic leaders and the private sector. All are key to developing new energy technologies and ensuring they’re available and being used, she said.

“I’m an optimist in this debate,” Harbert said. “If the federal government and Congress can establish a framework for the private sector, we will expand capabilities and develop technologies that will not only meet our country’s challenge but also ensure our country can help the rest of the world meet their challenges.”

University of Missouri Energy Summit

4/22/2009

University of Missouri Energy Summit
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Remarks As Prepared by Karen Harbert, President and CEO
Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Thank you for that kind introduction, and for the opportunity to be with you all this afternoon. I would like to commend the University of Missouri for convening what I hope will be your first of many Energy Summits.

As I flew here this morning, the passenger on my left was a woman coming to St. Louis for a clothing trade show who was surprised to learn it was earth day; on my right was a middle-aged gentlemen reading an advanced quantum physics textbook and diligently working on a cost and schedule spreadsheet on his laptop; and in front of him was a professional swimmer meditating before his upcoming meet. What a great and diverse country we live in but what struck me in the very small vignette is no matter how different we are we are still bound together by some common challenges as Americans, and in this case obviously I am thinking about energy. But the other thing that struck me was the huge differences in understanding exactly what and how great the challenges are in confronting our energy situation.

You all are here to explore and debate on how to set a new course for our energy future. So in thinking about what I was going to speak about today, I thought it would be important to lay out where we are today – you can’t chart a new course successfully without know where you currently stand. And on this new course we need a new compass to guide us on our way and I will lay out what I think are the new points on that compass rose.

As other speakers here today have made clear, energy security is among the biggest challenges we face in the 21st century. Energy is a unique public policy issue because it touches on so many other sectors:

Our economic security depends on energy.

Why do I say that? An affordable, reliable supply of energy for our nation is essential if not integral for our economy to grow and in the current environment to actually afford our economy to recover and be healthy once again.

Our environmental security depends on energy.

Why? The choices we make on how we transform the production and use of energy in the next few years can put us on a path to increased environmental sustainability but if mishandled, the consequences to our economy, security and the environment will be unwelcome.

And our national security depends on energy.

Why? The competitiveness of our nation and our standing abroad is greatly affected by our having an abundant and reliable supply of energy.

I am sure we would all agree that our nation’s plate is quite full of challenges at the moment, but, it is not a stretch to say that energy is among the most important and the most complex.

At this critical juncture, we need extraordinary new partnerships, new instruments and new players to set the course for solving our nation’s energy challenges. This requires a new paradigm – a new model – to bring the best of the business community, the best of academia, and the best of local, state and federal government together to harness our nation’s deep well of innovation to allow us the lead America and even the world to a more secure, clean and prosperous energy future.

Last summer I saw, on a small scale, how this new model would work and bear fruit through an effort pioneered at Colorado State University.

A team of student and professional researchers developed a snowmobile engine that was 300 times cleaner and more efficient than existing models. Their more efficient engine technology also reduced tailpipe emissions by 70 to 90 percent. Through collaboration with the University’s school of business, the team of innovators designed a business plan so that their invention could have broader commercial applicability by attaching the technology to the engines of small high-pollution vehicles widely used in the developing world. The technology is now used in major cities in the Philippines with planned expansions to other countries this year.

How did this happen? With seed money for research from local organizations, researchers and engineers from the university, laboratory space donated by the local government, federal government laboratory support and early private sector involvement, these innovators took an idea, perfected it, and are now selling it globally.

At many points along the way, this project could have died. But it didn’t. Because these groups worked closely together.

This type of partnership should not be an interesting anecdote or a simple human interest story. It is these types of unconventional partnerships coupled with business acumen that will underwrite the fundamental changes our energy future demands.

Putting a new technology on the shelf is one thing; getting it to move off the shelf is another issue entirely. And make no mistake about it; innovation and technology are at the cornerstone of any new approach to energy.
Innovative new partnerships could make a real difference in both the development of new energy technologies, and in getting them quickly deployed into the marketplace.

The reason we need these new partnerships – and need them soon -- is because of the new set of energy realties that we must confront.

So what are these realities? First and foremost are the world’s growing and changing energy demands.

Global demand for energy will increase by 50 percent between now and 2030, with 75 percent of that demand coming from the developing world.

Electricity demand is projected to increase by 100 percent in that same timeframe.

And at the same time, there are 1.6 billion people around the world currently living without electricity. That is going to change. That needs to change. One of our core values as Americans is the desire to help lift people out of poverty and despair. But as more people have access to jobs, and more countries develop a middle class, there will be more people demanding electricity.

Second, we must confront the reality of energy costs.

Capital costs for energy projects are increasing. Costs across the board are going up for necessary components like copper and steel, while access to credit is increasingly difficult.

It is estimated that we’ll need to invest at least $26 trillion over the next 25 years to meet energy demands. With the global economy struggling, we must ask ourselves if that investment is going to occur? Do we have the policies in place that will encourage that huge sum of money to be invested in energy to unlock needed new supplies of hydrocarbons, wind, solar, nuclear, coal and alternative fuels?

Third, we must confront the reality of our environmental challenges.

Because today is Earth Day, the media is focusing extra attention on steps we can take to help our environment. Clearly, we can make greater strides in efficiency. However, one thing that’s not often, if ever, reported is that smart energy action and smart energy policies don’t just improve energy security, they materially improve our environment.

I think it is fair to say that everyone wants to be involved in a national discussion on energy and climate change.

And every American must have this opportunity because every household, every business large and small, every academic institution, and every sector of the economy has a lot at stake.

That’s why today the U.S. Chamber’s Energy Institute issued a climate change 101 paper to help familiarize people with the issues on the table and the terms, and by this I mean the actual vocabulary, being used in this debate. The paper and video can be found on the Institute’s website at WWW.ENERGYXXI.ORG.

Right now the Obama Administration and Congress have different climate change proposals on the table. The Obama Administration’s goal is to cut U.S. emissions to 14 percent below 2005 levels in the year 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. To achieve this goal, our nation will need to cut or reduce 1 gigaton (for those of you without your supercomputer at your seat) – that’s 1 billion metric tons -- of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

To put that number in perspective, reducing one gigaton of greenhouse gas emissions for a year would take:

Building 130 nuclear plants instead of traditional coal-fired power plants; or

Installing 1.7 million acres of solar panels, or

Installing 127,500 large wind turbines in lieu of projects that emit fossil fuels.

As you can tell, this is going to take a major transformation of how we use and produce energy. It’s going to take time, it’s not going to be easy, and it’s not cost free.

It means we must be realistic about what it’s going to take. We must be realistic about the state of technology and its commercial viability. We must be realistic about the timelines.

We should not mandate what technology can’t deliver. Ultimately, such an approach hurts the economy, doesn’t improve the environment and drives businesses overseas.

Fourth, we must confront the reality of global competitiveness.

In 2008, the United States sent between $400 and $700 billion dollars overseas for imported oil. Unless we take action to increase our domestic supplies that number could go up. It’s hard to remain competitive when so much of our nation’s financial capital must be shipped overseas for oil.

I spoke earlier of innovation and technology being a fundamental underpinning of a new energy strategy. That requires new talent, new intellectual feedstock and a new national commitment to technical disciplines in education. We are lagging behind other countries in the number of qualified engineers we graduate. China already is graduating more engineers each year than we are, and the United States is graduating fewer science, mathematics and engineering students than we did just 15 years ago. Today we are consumed with reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I hope tomorrow our biggest concern is not reducing our dependence on imported intellect.

America’s regulatory system also needs a serious overhaul. Our federal and state governments’ complicated and onerous regulatory structure are also inhibiting us relative to other nations. China will build 20 emissions-free nuclear plants in the next 10 years. That’s because in China, it takes five years to license and build a nuclear power plant. Here in the United States, it takes at least ten.

So the realities of demand, of cost, of the environment and of global competitiveness are all factors we must confront when developing sound energy policies. Taken together, it provides a very sobering assessment, but it should not be a discouraging assessment.

Missouri’s native son, Harry Truman, once said, “A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities, and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties.”

Despite everything you heard, I truly am an optimist. The United States can make opportunities of these difficulties, but it will require more than just identifying new sources of energy, it will require identifying a new approach to energy.

Central to that new approach is the new paradigm I spoke of earlier…..bringing together the government, universities, researchers, and the business community to work together on our energy challenges. But there are other components of this new approach that must exist too.

First, we need new a financial architecture for a new energy economy to flourish. Between the laboratory and the marketplace, there is a “Valley of Death” where the inability to attract funding or generate revenue can mean the difference between success and failure. We must bridge that gap.

The successful development of new technologies requires more than strong partnerships; it requires steady capital. To reduce U.S. gas consumption by 20 percent in 10 years, it is estimated that we will need to make between $1.1 and $1.6 trillion dollars in capital investments in clean energy technology. So if we want to accelerate the development of that technology, we must accelerate the formation of that capital.

To do this, the Institute has proposed the creation of a new Clean Energy Bank of the United States and Congress is debating this proposal right now. This new financial institution would provide concessionary financing and other products to accelerate the development of advanced clean energy technologies and projects. I would add that such an effort would be funded through its operations rather than on the back of the taxpayer.

Second, we need to develop complementary energy policies that put us on the right long-term path.

Over the past year, our Institute has worked to develop a comprehensive, pro-growth energy strategy that includes nearly 90 detailed steps and a timeline for when they should be taken by the Administration and Congress.

We need comprehensive energy policies, not narrow policies that benefit a few select industries or sectors and ignore others. The bottom line is that we’re going to need a wide variety of sources and technologies to fuel our economy.

We’re going to need more renewable energy. Renewables currently account for less than 3 percent of our electricity mix and even with a tripling of solar and wind projects, it will still comprise less than 10 percent of our electricity demand. This industry requires a more predictable fiscal environment in order for businesses to make long-term capital decisions. The tax incentives for solar and wind generation have been turned on and off like a light switch and that has sent mixed signals to investors.

Despite their merits, wind and solar energy are intermittent sources of energy – only available when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Therefore, our nation still requires additional reliable base load electricity and that means we’re going to need more nuclear energy. I know that’s a subject currently under debate here in Missouri with the proposed life extension of the Callaway plant. It is important to remember nuclear power is a cost-effective, emissions-free source of 20 percent of our nation’s electricity supply. If we are to meet our twin goals of improving both our energy and environmental security, nuclear is a must.

However, we need to commit to a permanent solution to our nation’s nuclear waste ….we must responsibly manage our nation’s nuclear waste. Stay tuned, the Institute will be releasing our thoughts on this in the coming weeks.

Here in Missouri coal from Wyoming powers millions of homes and businesses. It is in your interest to continue to use this coal and it’s in the nation’s interest too. Coal provides 50 percent of our nation’s electricity. At our current production rates, we have enough coal to last for more than 200 years. But to minimize air pollution and CO2 emissions, we must invest in technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). The Institute has called for an increase in investments in clean coal technology with half coming from the government and half from the private sector to develop long-term clean coal solutions.

Now let’s talk about oil and natural gas. The fact is that oil and natural gas will remain the backbone of our national and global economy for the foreseeable future. You can not forget that 96 percent of our transportation sector still relies of oil and we can not wave a magic wand and change that overnight. Congress and the Administration must allow for increased exploration and production in the Outer Continental Shelf and on federal lands onshore. For 30 years, 85 percent of America’s oil and natural gas resources have been placed off-limits to exploration and production.

We have tremendous reserves of both oil and natural gas. This has been a self-inflicted wound to our security and prosperity, and needs to end. Not only will this exploration create new American energy resources, but also new jobs and industries. And on the environmental front, significant advancements in technology enable us to produce these resources in an environmentally responsible way.
One only has to think back to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who ripped across the Gulf of Mexico right through areas of dense oil and gas production. The US Coast Guard determined that there were no significant spills to report as a result.

Third we have to realize that we have a huge opportunity in energy efficiency. Great improvements have been made on this front. The United States uses 50 percent less energy to produce a dollar of GDP than we did thirty years ago. I’d like for you to remember that the next best source of energy is the energy we waste everyday. But we must harness that energy and make it work for us and technology and infrastructure improvements can and will make a significant contribution.

To improve our efficiency, the federal government should work with states to adopt building codes that include energy efficiency standards. We must also create incentives for electric utilities and consumers to become more efficient.

The fourth component of our new approach is reducing overly burdensome regulation to actually get energy projects constructed, not cancelled.

Everyone is familiar with the term - NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard - but that’s a thing of the past. Today, our nation is plagued with a new syndrome called BANANA –
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. As a result, the construction or expansion of everything from transmission lines to power plants are routinely delayed or blocked. One power company spent 13 years getting federal and state permits for a 90-mile interstate power line that took less than three years to build.

This is happening around the country too and is one of the gravest threats to our economy being able to function like a 21st century economy.

And just because a project is “green” doesn’t mean it fares any better. Whereas projects once became entangled in red tape, they now just as easily get entangled in “green tape.” Renewable energy projects have been snagged, sued or blocked everywhere from Massachusetts to Kansas to California.

To restore sanity to our regulatory process, there are a few important actions that need to be taken:

First, the federal government needs to play a greater role in the siting of transmission lines.

Next, we need to reform our laws -- specifically the National Environmental Policy Act -- that are consistently abused by individuals and groups seeking to bring needless and endless delays to energy projects they oppose.

Right now more energy policy is being set in the courtroom than in the Congress. Ultimately leaving our energy policy to be adjudicated in the courtroom rather than in the Halls of Congress does a grave disservice to our nation’s competitiveness.

Historian Arnold Toynbee (pronounced TOIN-bee) observed that civilizations “come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges. They break down and go to pieces if and when a challenge confronts them which they fail to meet.”

Throughout history, societies have been defined by their ability to confront and meet the challenges of their day. For our society, for our generation, energy is that challenge.
Because the actions we take – or fail to take -- over the next few years will determine the path for our country for decades to come.

Are we prepared to chart the right course? Do we have the right compass?

Will our children and grandchildren grow up with the diverse sources of energy needed to power their homes, their transportation, and their workplaces?

Will they have a clean environment, devoid of smog and pollution?

Will they have an economy that creates jobs, and allows them to earn a good living?

Will they have a country where they feel safe, and where they have ample opportunities to succeed?

This is what is at stake in the debate over energy, and why it is imperative that we make this a priority of the highest order.

Thank you for inviting me here today, and I’d be happy to answer some questions.

Newsweek: The Lioness in Spring

4/13/2009

A kinder, gentler Carol Browner is backing Obama's green agenda.

By: Michael Hirsch

Carol Browner is in a better place than she was a decade ago. Back in the '90s, Browner was the agitator on the ramparts, the true-blue protégé of Mr. Environment himself—Al Gore. From her perch at the Environmental Protection Agency down Pennsylvania Avenue, she battled with the economic mandarins of the Clinton Treasury Department—often unsuccessfully—and became the bane of America's utilities and smokestack industries. Even at the EPA, Browner was sometimes known by the Voldemort-ish moniker "She Who Must Be Obeyed."

Today Browner, 53, is trying to project a different image entirely. Brought into Barack Obama's inner circle as his "czarina" for energy and climate issues—a brand-new White House post—she is now mainly a back-room coordinator. To fulfill her boss's vision of a roaring green U.S. economy that marries environmental progress with industrial rebirth, Browner is trying to bring the cabinet agencies she once squabbled with—Energy, Transportation, EPA and so on—under one tent. Now her power lies mainly in persuasion—for example, encouraging Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist, and his team to supply new scientific and technological ideas for greening the economy. "They're much smarter at this than I am … What I can do as these things start to materialize is ask what are the ways we can bring them to market," she says in an interview, adding: "I don't have any independent policymaking authority. It's not like when I was at EPA and I could depend on regulation."

Browner is still pretty crunchy. Though she lives a mile from her office next to the White House, she walks to work every day (while managing to dress fashionably). But the infighting, Browner insists in an interview, is a thing of the past, not least because Obama doesn't tolerate it. "I don't spend a lot of time thinking about am I in this meeting or am I not," she says. "That can destroy you in a place like this. I know what I think we need to accomplish for the president."

Looking at her now, tall, slender and still zealous in her cause, one has a sense that Browner is something of a lioness in spring, at ease with herself and savoring the landscape she now oversees. The issues she fought so hard to bring to public view in the '90s are now front and center, especially after eight years of relative inaction under George W. Bush, whose presidency Browner calls "the worst environmental administration ever." The dangers of global warming are a given. And while the Kyoto accord on reducing greenhouse gases is all but dead—having been unilaterally rejected by Bush—the administration plans to bring a far more activist approach than even Clinton to the next global climate conference, which takes place in Copenhagen in December. "There's been a tremendous evolution in terms of the green issues," Browner says. "Sixteen years ago, there was a lot of focus on conventional pollution issues"—in other words, cleaning up the old messes in the water and air and at Superfund sites. Now "there's much more focus on clean-energy opportunities" to move U.S. industry into a new era.

Most significant of all, perhaps, is that while Bill Clinton mouthed the right words about the environment, he didn't achieve all that much. One, he faced a recalcitrant GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton was also concerned about what restrictions on industry might do to his pride and joy, the thriving U.S. economy. Obama is, by all accounts, a true believer in the idea that good environmental policy is to a large extent the future of the U.S. economy, which needs something of a pick-me-up these days. Browner says a major source of America's next great growth spurt will be "green jobs and green technologies." Hence, Obama loaded even his temporary stimulus bill with almost $40 billion in grants and loan guarantees and renewable energy, as well as $11 billion for new transmission lines that will carry solar power and wind from places like Arizona and North Dakota to other states. Obama's 10-year budget proposal also contains nearly $75 billion to make tax cuts for energy research and experimentation permanent.

Browner's critics once called her a socialist. Now even some of those who once counted themselves as her adversaries in the early '90s, like Jim Rogers of Duke Energy—one of the nation's largest utilities—say they are impressed by her ability to grow and negotiate compromises with industry. "She's tough, but she's a lot more pragmatic than people give her credit for," he says.

Browner is appropriately ironic about her nickname from the Obama campaign: the czarina. ("The only problem is that there were no czarinas without czars in history," she jokes. "It was all courtesy of their husbands.") But she takes her coordinating role seriously. And she denies any suggestion that she is dominating policy. Her mandate, she says, is merely to encourage all "the cabinet departments and agencies to sort of work across the traditional boundaries." Browner says one of her main goals is to orchestrate a single national policy so that different government agencies aren't confusing industries and states by setting different policies. Example: DOT regulates autos, but so does EPA because of the 1990 Clean Air Act. "We don't want car companies saying, 'I have to do this for EPA and this for DOT'."

Her colleagues in the Obama Cabinet seem to have only nice things to say so far. "I give her very, very high marks," says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican, who says he's been to six meetings chaired by Browner already. "She's very inclusive. She has really reached out and cast a very broad net." In other interviews with NEWSWEEK, Energy Secretary Chu and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar also praised Browner for her performance. "I'm very happy," says Chu. "She is really bringing various stakeholders into the same room and making sure these discussions are occurring."

There are, to be sure, some who complain they're not yet part of the discussion. Industry lobbyists remain wary that Obama and Browner are still slighting traditional energy sources such as oil, gas and nuclear, favoring renewables such as solar and wind (the exception is clean coal, a big Obama focus). Renewables, after all, will play only a small part in America's energy future for decades to come. "We have not seen any explicit policies that will accelerate the development of American oil and gas resources here at home," says Karen Harbert of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She hopes the administration won't end up "picking winners and losers … What we want to see is a very open and transparent discussion with the private sector, on whose back the ultimate responsibility will fall for implementing the energy and environmental policies. It's very important that we have a permanent seat at the table."

ENTIRE ARTICLE

New York Times: Obama, Who Vowed Rapid Action on Climate Change, Turns More Cautious

4/11/2009

By: John M. Broder

WASHINGTON — President Obama came to office promising swift and comprehensive action to combat global climate change, and the topic remains a surefire applause line in his speeches here and abroad.

Yet the administration has taken a cautious and rather passive role on the issue, proclaiming broad goals while remaining aloof from details of climate legislation now in Congress.
The president’s budget initially included roughly $650 billion in revenue over 10 years from a cap-and-trade emissions plan that he wants adopted. But the administration, while insisting that its health care initiative be protected, did not fight to keep cap-and-trade in the budget resolutions that Congress passed last week, and it wound up in neither the House’s version nor the Senate’s.

Overseas, American officials are telling their counterparts that they need time to gauge the American public’s appetite for an ambitious carbon reduction scheme before leading any international effort.

Has the administration scaled back its global-warming goals, at least for this year, or is it engaged in sophisticated misdirection?

Maybe some of both. While addressing climate change appears to be slipping down the president’s list of priorities for the year, he is holding in reserve a powerful club to regulate carbon dioxide emissions through executive authority.

That club takes the form of Environmental Protection Agency regulation of the gases blamed for the warming of the planet, an authority granted the agency by the Supreme Court’s reading of the Clean Air Act. Administration officials consistently say they would much prefer that Congress write new legislation to pre-empt the E.P.A. regulatory power, but they are clearly holding it in reserve as a prod to reluctant lawmakers and recalcitrant industries and as evidence of good faith to other nations.

Industry lobbyists and members of Congress who are engaged in writing energy and global warming bills say they are well aware of the E.P.A. process bearing down on them.
“Once the Supreme Court declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, E.P.A. had no choice but to act,” said Representative Rick Boucher, a moderate Democrat from a coal-producing region of Virginia. “Most people would rather have Congress act. We can be more balanced; we can take into account the effects on the economy. But if we don’t undertake this, E.P.A. certainly will.”

Still, the agency’s regulations would take months to write and years to become fully effective. Meanwhile, Congress is already starting work on energy and climate legislation, though without significant guidance from the White House, at least in public.

Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator of energy and climate policy, issued a surprisingly bland statement last week when two top House Democrats unveiled a far-reaching plan to cap greenhouse gases and move the nation toward an economy less dependent on carbon-rich fuels like coal and oil.

Ms. Browner stopped short of endorsing that plan, issued by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, saying instead that Mr. Obama “looks forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers to pass a bill that would transition the nation to a clean-energy economy.” She gave little clue as to what she and the president believe such a measure should say.

At an international climate conference in Germany that ended Wednesday, some delegates said they were disappointed in the Obama administration’s lack of robust leadership. The explanation offered by Jonathan Pershing, a leader of the American delegation, was that the administration was waiting to measure the American technological and political capacity to address climate change and was looking to Congress to set specific targets for reducing carbon pollution.

Business lobbyists welcome the White House’s go-slow approach, saying the issue is too complicated and too costly to be rushed, especially in a recession.

“We have not until now had a national debate on a climate change proposal, period,” said Karen A. Harbert, a former senior Energy Department official who now heads the United States Chamber of Commerce’s energy institute. “That has to happen for any piece of legislation to achieve broad support across the country.”

Ms. Harbert and other business lobbyists also welcomed the administration’s hesitancy to undertake regulation of climate-altering gases under E.P.A. authority, saying the matter should be fully aired before Congress so that all interests and regions could be heard.

ENTIRE ARTICLE

April 2009 Newsletter

4/3/2009


Karen Harbert, Energy Institute President & CEO, attended the Inaugural International Energy Agency Business Council Meeting.	Stephen Eule, the Institute's VP for Climate & Technology, participated in an international business roundtable on the UN climate negotiations.

Energy News Roundup

This month we bring you a new section highlighting key actions, events, and issues during the past month that are of interest to the Institute for 21st Century Energy and its members.

• Cap and Trade Still Front and Center for the Administration, But Congress is Poised to Punt in the Budget: While President Obama and senior Administration officials are still insisting that cap and trade remains on track, the House and Senate Budget Committees have both passed budgets that do not project the same revenue from cap and trade that the Administration's budget blueprint does. Although there is still some talk of using reconciliation as a way to avoid a filibuster on cap and trade, the Senate approved an amendment sponsored by Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) to essentially block such a procedure. 26 Democrats joined 41 Republicans to approve the measure, which will prevent revenues from cap and trade from being used as offsets for federal spending. On the House side, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have released a draft version of cap and trade legislation they hope to pass in the House by Memorial Day. While the Energy Institute is currently analyzing the bill, we remain concerned about the energy and economic implications of such a proposal.

• Administration Issues First Loan Guarantee: On March 20, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced that the Department of Energy has taken an initial step to offer a $535 million loan guarantee to California-based Solyndra. The loan guarantee will be used to aid in the construction of a new solar manufacturing plant. While the issuance of the first loan guarantee is a positive step, the Energy Institute is calling for an expansion of the loan guarantee program beyond its current $42.5 billion authority to help companies obtain financing for clean energy projects. Executive Director of Strategy Megan Bloomgren blogged about the announcement and the loan guarantee program here.

• EPA Finds that Global Warming is Endangering Health: The EPA has submitted a finding to the White House that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants that endanger the public's health and welfare. The finding sets the stage for a series of regulatory actions under the Clean Air Act that would have a broad impact on the economy and the ability of projects across all sectors to move forward. The move follows the March 10 release of proposed EPA regulations that will require the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Institute has recommended that Congress not regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act or the Endangered Species Act because these laws were not designed for and are ill suited to address the complexities of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• Boucher Introduces Carbon Capture and Sequestration Bill: On March 24, Representative Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and 14 co-sponsors including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-Texas), introduced legislation to establish a $1 billion annual fund to support the development of projects to capture and store carbon. The legislation is virtually identical to what was recommended in the Energy Institute's Blueprint For Securing America's Energy Future. The Institute supports efforts to lower the cost of CCS technology so that it can be deployed to reduce fossil fuel emissions. It appears that CCS will be a priority for the 111th Congress.

• Senate Begins Markup of Energy Bill: This week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the first in what is likely to be a series of markups to put together an energy bill. The first meeting was to package together legislation that had already been introduced by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, including: an energy and water study, re-authorizations of programs from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, new efficiency standards for lighting, and a proposal to provide additional financing options for energy efficient manufacturing. More contentious items, such as a Renewable Electricity Standard and siting proposals for transmission lines, are expected to be considered in separate markups following the Easter recess. The Institute's Vice President for Policy, Christopher Guith highlighted the Committee's bipartisan approach and called for both sides to continue to work together.

Institute Continues International Outreach

The Institute for 21st Century Energy recognizes that energy and climate challenges are global in their scope and nature. For that reason, we conduct regular outreach to the international business community so that we can share experiences and solutions. Following Steven Eule's February trip to Copenhagen to bring a business voice to international climate negotiations, President and CEO Karen Harbert joined 25 of the world's biggest energy companies at the first International Energy Agency (IEA) International Business Council meeting in Paris in March. At the IEA meeting, Harbert discussed the impact of the financial crisis on energy supply and prices, with a particular focus on concerns that industry leaders have about the government's increasing involvement in managing energy markets.

Also in March, Karen Harbert visited Calgary to highlight the importance of a strong U.S.-Canadian relationship. America imports more oil, gas, and electricity from Canada than from any other country, and Canadian producers are continuing to find new ways to develop resources that the U.S. will need to meet demand. While in Calgary, Harbert held a roundtable discussion with key members of the Canadian press , and fielded questions on the Obama Administration and its approach to Canadian oil sands. Harbert predicted that with regard to Canada, the Administration will not "enact policies that are going to devastate an affordable and reliable supply of energy."

The Month Ahead

Another new feature,The Month Ahead offers a few items to keep on your radar screen that could impact energy and environmental policy during the coming month.

• House Expected to Move on Climate Bill: Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have released a discussion draft of their cap and trade proposal that will form the basis for discussion in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which Waxman chairs. Waxman has called on the committee to pass legislation before Congress goes on Memorial Day Recess. However, Waxman and Markey have intentionally left several key details out of the bill in an effort to gain consensus. Key players in the discussion include House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and former Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), whose reaction may shed some light on the bill's overall chances. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has also indicated that she is still drafting a Senate version of cap and trade, but said that she would follow the House proceedings closely. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has indicated that the Senate is likely to take up the Waxman bill when it is completed as a starting point for Senate debate.

• Interior Secretary Salazar to Hold Regional Meetings on Offshore Development: Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar will hold four regional meetings this month to present the Department of Interior's findings on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Development. The hearings will provide the public and stakeholders with an opportunity to share their views with the Secretary on this important matter. As strong supporters of tapping into America's vast resources to reduce our dependence of foreign oil, the Institute encourages all members and supporters to take part in the hearings if possible. The schedule is as follows: April 6, Atlantic City Convention Center, Atlantic City, NJ; April 8, Tulane University, New Orleans, La.; April 14, Dena'ina Convention Center, Anchorage, Alaska, April 16, University of California-San Francisco Mission Bay Conference Center, San Francisco, Calif.

If you are unable to attend the OCS Public Hearings but still wish to be heard, you may submit comments before or after the meeting at www.mms.gov or by mail to Ms. Renee Orr, Chief, Leasing Division, Mineral Management Service, MS 4010, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170-4817.

• Earth Day: America will celebrate Earth Day on April 22. The Institute for 21st Century Energy strongly advocates policies that promote environmental stewardship. Through policy development, education, and advocacy, we are building support for meaningful energy action at the local, state, national, and international levels. Included in our policy recommendations are those that would promote the development of clean energy technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as those that will conserve energy through increased building efficiency and appliance standards. Our goal is the creation of an energy policy that drives economic growth, increases our energy supply and protects the environment.

4/5-10/09 Christopher Guith will participate in a dialogue about Japan's energy policy and visit advanced nuclear and renewable energy facilities. Hosted by the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan
Tokyo, Japan

4/8/09 Karen Harbert will deliver the keynote speech at the Washington Coal Council's monthly policy luncheon
Washington, DC

4/22/09 Earth Day

4/22/09 Karen Harbert will be a featured speaker at the University of Missouri System's Energy Summit 2009
Columbia, MO

4/28/09 Karen Harbert will deliver the keynote address at the National Energy Marketers Association's 12th Annual Global Energy Forum
Washington, DC

Roll Call: Harbert: Private Sector Ready to Do Its Part

Washington Times: Coal is Winner Even in "Green" Congress

Chicago Tribune: Energy Studies Get a Jolt

Read More