http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-americas-use-of-fossil-fuels2 America has the technological know-how and the resources to move away http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-americas-use-of-fossil-fuels2 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states2 In the summer of 2006, Americans from coast to coast experienced a http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states2 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/rising-to-the-challenge-six-steps-to-cut-global-warming-pollution-in-the-united-states2 Extensive scientific evidence demonstrates that global warming is real, http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/rising-to-the-challenge-six-steps-to-cut-global-warming-pollution-in-the-united-states2 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/the-carbon-boom-national-and-state-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1960 The early effects of global warming are already evident across the United States and worldwide. The year 2005 was the warmest on record. Left unchecked, temperatures will continue to rise, and the effects of global warming will become more severe. This report examines trends in U.S. global warming pollution nationally and by state and concludes that the failure to limit emissions from burning oil, coal, and natural gas has allowed global warming pollution to grow out of control.Human activities over the last century – primarily burning fossil fuels – have changed the composition of the atmosphere in ways that threaten to dramatically alter the climate in the years to come. In a December 2005 speech, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated, “The Earth’s climate is nearing, but has not passed, a tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far ranging undesirable consequences.” These consequences, he said, would “constitute practically a different planet” and include sea level rise, heat waves, drought, more intense hurricanes, decreased crop yields, water scarcity, and the spread of infectious diseases.The United States is by far the largest worldwide contributor to global warming, releasing a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide, the primary global warming pollutant. Power plants, cars, and light trucks are the largest U.S. sources of carbon dioxide.Existing technology could substantially reduce global warming pollution by making power plants and factories more efficient, making cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and shifting the country to clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. These solutions also would reduce our dependence on oil, reduce air pollution, protect pristine places from oil drilling and mining, and save consumers money.Unfortunately, the United States has rejected mandatory limits on global warming pollution, opting instead to allow global warming pollution to increase unabated. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed nationally and in most states.Using data compiled by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, this report examines trends in carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel combustion nationally and by state for the four decades spanning 1960 to 2001. Our major findings include the following:Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Booming• Between 1960 and 2001, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide almost doubled, jumping from 2.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1960 to almost 5.7 billion metric tons in 2001, an increase of 95 percent.• In the 1990s, carbon dioxide emissions grew more quickly than in the 1970s and 1980s, increasing steadily at an average rate of 1.5 percent each year. The Energy Information Administration estimates that emissions grew by 1.7 percent in 2004, increasing to almost 6.0 billion metric tons.• Regionally, carbon dioxide emissions rose most rapidly in the Southeast and Gulf South between 1960 and 2001, increasing by 163 percent and 175 percent, respectively.• Among the states, Texas ranked first in the nation for the highest emissions of carbon dioxide in 2001, releasing 12 percent of the nation’s total carbon dioxide emissions. In 1960, Texas emitted 240.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide; by 2001, the state’s emissions had grown to 668.5 million metric tons, an increase of 178 percent.• Twenty-eight (28) states more than doubled their carbon dioxide emissions between 1960 and 2001. The 10 states that experienced the largest overall increases in emissions in this period include Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, and Arizona.Driving the Boom in Carbon Dioxide EmissionsA dramatic growth in oil emissions from the transportation sector and coal emissions from electricity generation fueled the rapid increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 1960 and 2001.• Carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion jumped 1.1 billion metric tons from 1960 to 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The transportation sector drove this rapid increase. Carbon dioxide emissions from oil burned in the transportation sector increased by more than 150 percent over the period, largely due to a substantial rise in vehicle travel and the stagnating fuel economy of vehicles. In every other sector, carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion peaked in the 1970s (Figure ES-1).• Carbon dioxide emissions from coal climbed 1.1 billion metric tons between 1960 and 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Increased electricity generation from coal-fired power plants fueled this rapid growth. Emissions from coal combustion in the electricity sector skyrocketed from 1960 to 2001, increasing by 370 percent, as demand for electricity boomed. At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions from the industrial sector declined steadily after 1966 (Figure ES-2).The longer we wait to reduce global warming pollution, the harder the task will be in the future. Key components of an action plan to protect future generations from global warming include:• Establish mandatory limits on global warming pollution that reduce emissions from today’s levels within 10 years, by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.• Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by making our homes and businesses more energy efficient, making our cars and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and generating more electricity from renewable energy sources. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/the-carbon-boom-national-and-state-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1960 Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/new-energy-for-campuses--energy-saving-policies-for-colleges-and-universities Our country is dependent on an old, outmoded, fossil-fuel energy system that is simultaneously speeding environmental degradation and making us less secure. There is a better way. The Apollo Alliance has a plan to improve national security by reducing dependence on oil from unstable and undemocratic governments through investments in a resilient energy system, and by supporting new renewable distributed generation. The Apollo Alliance plan will also revitalize the economy, expanding markets for American technology, investing in workers, and improving competitiveness and productivity, even as it protects consumers and the environment. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/new-energy-for-campuses--energy-saving-policies-for-colleges-and-universities Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/solutions-to-americas-oil-crisis-a-federal-agenda-for-reducing-oil-demand-and-protecting-consumers America is too dependent on oil, and consumers are paying the price. For the last two years, gasoline prices have been creeping upward. In 2003, a gallon of regular gasoline averaged $1.56; so far in 2005, the same gallon has averaged $2.20, with prices in some areas spiking close to $4.00 in August and September.The recent rise in oil and gasoline prices is the result of increasing demand bumping against both natural and technological limits in the world’s ability to produce and supply oil. This tight supply/demand balance, coupled with increased market concentration in the oil industry, has left consumers vulnerable to price spikes at the pump.The long-term limits on oil resources underscore the important ways in which oil does not operate like other commodities. While market theory would suggest that oil production would simply increase every time demand increases, the geological limits of oil belie this assumption. Should demand continue to increase—as is anticipated under current policies—the most likely scenario is for prices to continue to rise, placing an even greater strain on the American economy and consumers.Meanwhile, oil companies have raked in record profits. ExxonMobil alone made $25 billion in profits in 2004 and is on pace to surpass that amount in 2005. Essentially, high gasoline prices are helping fuel a massive transfer of wealth from average consumers to large multinational oil companies that benefit from America’s oil dependence.With consumers being drained at the pump and America spinning into a worsening spiral of dependence, it is well beyond the time for congressional action. Congress has opportunity to parlay the oil industry’s record profits into proposals that will reduce America’s dependence on oil and protect consumers in the long-run.This paper outlines two policy solutions to address this problem.Solution #1: Make our cars more fuel efficient.The best way to cut America’s oil dependence and shield consumers from spikes at the pump is to make cars and light trucks go farther on a gallon of gasoline. Congress and the Bush administration should increase the fuel economy of the country’s fleet of cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon and eliminate perverse financial incentives that encourage manufacturers to produce and consumers to choose gas guzzlers over more efficient cars.Solution #2: Prioritize consumer savings over oil industry profits.Growing oil demand, shrinking supply, and anti-competitive nature of oil markets provide compelling reasons for Congress and the Bush administration to take immediate action to end the current transfer of wealth to the oil industry and transition consumers to a less oil dependent economy. We must redirect some of the record oil company profits into measures that will dramatically reduce our oil consumption. To this end, we propose:• Repealing all existing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Under current law, the oil and gas industry would receive $10.7 billion in tax breaks between 2005 and 2009. Congress should immediately repeal all existing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and shift these incentives toward conservation solutions that will help consumers.• Instituting a windfall profits tax. Congress should immediately enact a windfall profits tax on oil that will recoup a portion of the oil industry’s record profits. The windfall profit tax would only apply when the price of crude oil exceeds $40 per barrel. With the estimated $26 billion in revenue generated in 2005 alone from repealing the tax breaks and establishing a windfall profits tax, we can pursue policies to ease America’s oil dependence and save consumers money. For example:• Congress could double the tax credit available to consumers purchasing more fuel efficient cars and remove all restrictions on the number of fuel-efficient cars eligible for the credit. In addition, Congress could expand the credit so that it applies to all vehicles that meet the fuel economy and air pollution criteria, regardless of the technology utilized. Every $2 billion of the windfall profit invested in expanding this tax credit would allow approximately 318,000 more consumers to benefit.• Congress could increase funding for public transportation, such as light rail. Currently, for every $4 that the federal government spends on highways, only $1 is invested in mass transit. This car-dependent transportation system fuels America’s over-reliance on oil. Diverting $8 billion of the windfall profits each year to public transportation would effectively double the federal government’s investment in mass transit. Similarly, for $8 billion, the federal government could build more than 200 miles of light rail—resulting in a 20 percent increase in light rail infrastructure nationally. Alternatively, the revenue could be used to reduce fares on existing public transit systems. With $8 billion, the federal government could enable everyone who rode public transit in 2003 to ride for free.• Congress could increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a federally funded program that helps low-income households meet their home energy needs through immediate bill payment assistance and weatherization upgrades to make homes more energy efficient. Applying just $2 billion of the windfall profit toward this program could help four million more needy households this winter, when home heating costs are expected to be high.America’s energy problems are not going to go away on their own, nor can we depend on the market to solve them. The U.S. government needs to step in and help move America toward a more efficient, less oil dependent, energy future while protecting consumers’ wallets, rather than oil companies’ profits. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/solutions-to-americas-oil-crisis-a-federal-agenda-for-reducing-oil-demand-and-protecting-consumers Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/saving-americas-arctic-dispelling-myths-about-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is truly one of America’s last wild places. It contains no roads, trails, or structures, so you must fly, boat, or walk to get there. It is a pristine habitat, one that supports large populations of migratory birds, caribou, muskoxen, all three species of bear, wolves, Dall sheep, and snow geese. The annual migration of the 129,000-member caribou herd evokes images of the long-gone buffalo herds of the Great Plains.The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the only area along Alaska’s entire North Slope that is not currently open for oil and gas exploration. Unfortunately, oil companies such as ExxonMobil and their allies in the Bush administration and Congress are pushing to drill in the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, endangering one of America’s last wild places for a few months’ worth of oil and gas.Drilling advocates have made several different arguments to try to garner more support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These arguments simply do not stand up to the facts.• Drilling Myth: Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will lower gasoline prices and make America less dependent on foreign oil. Turning the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge into a sprawling industrial complex would do little to ease our energy problems in the short or long term. At its peak, the Arctic Refuge likely would provide less than one percent (0.7%) of projected world oil production and would decline thereafter, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Given the small amount of oil in the Arctic Refuge, EIA also estimates that drilling in the Refuge would reduce gasoline prices by less than a penny-and-a-half a gallon and not until 2025. Moreover, since oil prices are set on the world market, OPEC producers and other oil-exporting nations could cut their output to counter any increase in U.S. output to keep oil and gasoline prices high.• Drilling Myth: The oil industry can drill without harming the environment. According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska’s North Slope experienced 4,532 oil spills between 1996 and 2004, an average of 504 spills annually. Overall, reported spills increased by 33 percent between 1996 and 2004, peaking in 2002. These spills released a total of 1.9 million gallons of crude oil, diesel, drilling fluids and waste, and other substances into the delicate Arctic environment. In 2004 alone, 554 spills were reported on the North Slope, or one spill every 16 hours.• Drilling Myth: The oil industry could develop the coastal plain using only 2,000 acres. Drilling proponents who argue the oil industry can limit development to 2,000 acres are only referring to surface acreage covered by production and support facilities and are excluding seismic or other exploration activities, which have had significant impacts on the Arctic environment to the west of the coastal plain. Oil field development in America’s Arctic includes a vast network of seismic exploration trails, gravel mines, roads, drill pads, pipelines, processing facilities, operating and housing facilities, and waste and sewer treatment plants that stretches across 1,000 square miles of tundra and has changed the Arctic ecosystem forever.Drilling for oil in this pristine haven for wildlife would disrupt and ultimately destroy one of America’s last remaining truly wild places. Instead of pushing to drill in the Arctic Refuge, the Bush administration should act to make our cars and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gasoline. Simply closing certain regulatory and tax loopholes for gas guzzlers would reduce U.S. oil dependence by 1.5 million barrels per day in 2025 and save consumers more than $30 billion, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Moreover, a 2001 UCS study showed that increasing fleetwide fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2012 and 55 mpg by 2020 would save nearly 5 million barrels of oil a day after 18 years and 1.5 million barrels per day after only eight years. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is no substitute for a real energy policy to reduce America’s dependence on oil. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/saving-americas-arctic-dispelling-myths-about-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/energy-efficiency-the-smart-way-to-reduce-global-warming-pollution-in-the-northeast Nine Northeast states from Delaware to Maine are currently working to develop a regional cap-and-trade system to limit global warming pollution from power plants. The program, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), represents one of the first significant efforts to mitigate the serious impacts of global warming in the United States.In order to achieve the greatest reduction in pollution at the least cost, energy efficiency must play a prominent role in the Northeast’s overall global warming strategy.According to government forecasts, demand for electricity in the Northeast will increase 23 percent by 2020, making cuts in global warming pollution more difficult and more expensive than they need to be.• The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects electricity demand will increase 1.4 percent per year between now and 2020.• To satisfy increasing demand and replace retiring facilities, the Northeast will require over 8,500 MW of new power plants. The DOE predicts that at least 85 percent of these plants will burn natural gas or other fossil fuels, which produce global warming pollution. Increasing demand also makes it more difficult to retire older, high-emitting power plants, which may be needed to ensure that the electric system continues to operate reliably.• Under these circumstances, DOE forecasts that emissions of carbon dioxide (the leading global warming pollutant) will rise 37 million tons per year by 2020.The Northeast has enough efficiency resources to slow and eventually halt growth in electricity demand—thus making emission reductions easier to achieve.• A variety of state, university and nonprofit studies have identified large potential for greater energy efficiency in Northeast states. For example, New England’s currently active efficiency programs will capture less than one fifth of the region’s achievable energy savings potential by 2013.• Deploying the achievable efficiency measures identified in these studies would reduce projected electricity demand in the Northeast by an average of 1.3 percent per year in the next decade, effectively keeping demand at 2007 levels. (See Figure ES-1.)• Halting growth in electricity demand would reduce upward pressure on regional carbon dioxide emissions and ease the pressure to continue operating older, carbon-inefficient plants to maintain the reliability of the electric system—making progress against global warming easier to achieve.Efficiency measures make progress against global warming less expensive.• Efficiency measures are two-thirds less expensive than generating and delivering electricity. In 2002, New England’s public benefit fund programs produced energy savings at an average cost of 2.4 cents per kWh. In comparison, wholesale power in New England is projected to cost from 4 to over 5 cents per kWh over the next decade—and over 9 cents per kWh including the cost of transmission infrastructure and energy losses.• In addition to saving consumers money directly, reduced energy demand leads to lower energy prices. For every 1 percent reduction in national demand for natural gas, prices decline 0.8 percent to 2 percent below otherwise expected levels.• Deploying identified cost-effective energy efficiency measures over the next decade would reduce Northeast electricity demand by 11 percent and utility natural gas demand by 11 percent versus projections in 2015— reducing the average price of electricity by 0.4 cents per kWh and the average wellhead price of natural gas by 2.6 cents per thousand cubic feet. By 2020, Northeast consumers would save a net of $13 billion, lowering the residential consumer’s average energy bill by $1.56 a month (before factoring in the cost of a carbon cap).• At the same time, efficiency measures will improve reliability of electric service and help avoid the need for special reliability payments to generators. Pending approval, new “Locational Installed Capacity” (or LICAP) charges could go into effect in 2006, giving generators an incentive to supply transmission-constrained areas but costing consumers as much as $13 billion over the next five years.• When consumers spend less on energy— much of which goes outside the region to pay for fossil fuels—they spend more on local goods and services, stimulating the economy. The Regulatory Assistance Project estimates that from 2000 to 2010, existing energy efficiency programs in New England will create $2 billion in economic output, over 1,000 jobs annually, and nearly $700 million in wages—while reducing carbon dioxide pollution by 2 million tons per year.The economic benefits of efficiency programs will allow for a tighter carbon cap without requiring additional sacrifices by ratepayers.• Efficiency savings could offset increases in electricity cost caused by the carbon cap, enabling a stronger cap to be set at the same or less cost.• Combining energy efficiency with a strong carbon cap would encourage high-polluting coal- and oil-fired power plants to reduce their emissions or give way to low-carbon forms of generation, delivering significant cuts in pollution.• However, energy efficiency won’t happen automatically in a cap-andtrade program, because market barriers and other fundamental obstacles prevent efficiency measures from competing with supply-side measures on equal footing.Northeastern states should make energy efficiency a central part of their plan of attack on global warming.• The forthcoming carbon cap-and-trade policy under negotiation in the Northeast should explicitly include support of energy efficiency programs in order to be most effective. Emission allowances (that is, permits that allow a facility to emit carbon dioxide) should not be given to generators for free. Instead, they should be sold at market price and the proceeds should be dedicated to fund energy efficiency and other public benefit programs, reducing the overall cost of the program and enabling the Northeast to meet more meaningful pollution reduction targets.• The cap should reduce global warming pollution to 25 percent below current levels by 2020, growing tighter over time.• Reductions should be achieved first and foremost from a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel power plants in the Northeast. Electricity imports should be included in the cap to prevent leakage. Offsets outside the regional electricity sector should not be considered until the capand- trade program has matured and been proven effective. If offsets are eventually considered, they should meet conservative and rigorous criteria to ensure that they enhance the benefit of the program.• Northeastern states should pursue a comprehensive set of energy efficiency policies outside of and in parallel to the cap and-trade program, including but not limited to:o Establishing dedicated efficiency programs (like Efficiency Vermont) that are independent of electricity and gas service providers and ensuring enough funding to tap achievable efficiency potential;o Improving residential and commercial building codes;o Setting minimum appliance efficiency standards;o Stimulating the deployment of combined heat and power technologies; ando Educating consumers about energy efficiency opportunities. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/energy-efficiency-the-smart-way-to-reduce-global-warming-pollution-in-the-northeast Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/2005-report-card-on-climate-change-action IntroductionIn August of 2001, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) agreed to a comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan with the long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the region by 75-85%. As that plan accurately pointed out, “global warming, given its harmful consequences to the environment and the economy, is a joint concern for which a regional approach to strategic action is required.”1 The Plan set the following goals:• Reduce regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2010.• Reduce regional GHG emissions by at least 10% below 1990 levels by 2020.• Reduce regional GHG emissions by 75- 85% in the long-term.To achieve the short, medium and long-term goals of the Climate Change Action Plan the Governors and Premiers developed nine (9) “Action Items” to guide the actions and policies of the states and provinces in meeting those objectives. The Plan also sets the goal of establishing an “interactive five-year process, commencing in 2005, to adjust the goals if necessary and set future emissions reduction goals.”As it is now 2005, and we are nearly halfway to the first goal set forth in the Plan, this year’s Report Card findings should be particularly helpful as the region’s Governors and Premiers work to assess their ability to achieve the goals to which they committed the region 4 years ago. The consensus in the global scientific, business and political communities that climate change is having, and will continue to have, devastating impacts on the planet has become even stronger in the past year. Therefore, the commitment to not only meet, but to surpass, the goals set in the 2001 Plan should grow stronger as well.Key FindingsAs this Report Card will highlight, there exists a wide range of variation among the states and provinces as to their activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Jurisdictions that are strong in some areas are weak in others. The following are the general themes that were observed in this year’s assessment process:Areas That Need ImprovementI. States and Provinces Need to Start Achieving Reductions from the Largest Pollution SourcesIn order to achieve the emissions goals set forth in the Plan, states and provinces need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the largest sources in their respective jurisdictions. Although variations exist between the various states and provinces, greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and power generation sector represent the largest contributors to climate change in the region. For the regional goals to be met, real emissions reductions from these sectors need to start happening soon.A. Transportation Sector (Action Item 8)Reducing emissions from the transportation sector continues to be one of the most challenging, yet most important areas for governments to address. It is also, unfortunately, an area in which little progress has been made in the region. In several states and provinces, the transportation sector still represents the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.As was recommended last year, for states and provinces to significantly reduce emissions from the transportation sector there are two policy paths that must be addressed as part of a comprehensive plan. Governments need to explore policy options that will increase the percentage of fuel-efficient and low emission vehicles in use. Policy options to achieve this include adopting low emission vehicle standards, similar to the California Clean Cars Standard, and the adoption of tax incentives to encourage the purchase of the most fuel-efficient vehicles.Several states and provinces have either enacted regulations or passed legislation to increase the number of fuel-efficient automobiles on the road. However, of equal importance to what we drive is how much we drive. States and provinces need to develop broad and forward-thinking plans to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (or VMTs.) This can be accomplished through the improvement and expansion of public transportation systems, as well as through comprehensive regional planning to reduce “urban sprawl,” and through incentives to reduce driving, such as insurance rates tied to the number of miles driven. States and provinces need to look closely at transportation patterns, especially in larger cities, and find ways to make improvements to the transportation infrastructure that give people the option to drive less.B. Power Sector (Action Item 5)Action Item 5 in the regional Plan sets a goal of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity in the region 20% by 2025. Although promising policies to address this sector currently are being developed, much more can - and should - be done. Given the lack of progress in reducing growth of transportation sector emissions, the percentage reductions from the power sector will need to be larger than the overall percentage targets in order for the region to meet the short-term and midterm GHG emissions goals in the Plan. Governments should recognize that some of the most cost-effective emissions reductions that can be made are in the power sector.To achieve this goal, governments should work to improve the region’s electricity fuel mix to include a much greater percentage of clean renewable energy sources as well as switch to lower carbon fuels that do not have other attendant health risks.In New England, the Governors should press for a model Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) rule that achieves emissions reductions that are – at the very least – consistent with the goals of the regional Plan, and that improves energy efficiency in the region.States and provinces should view energy efficiency and conservation – and policies to reduce electricity demand – as the foundation of any sound energy policy.II. States and Provinces Need to Better Promote Public Awareness of Climate Change (Action Item 3)The NEG/ECP Climate Change Action Plan set a goal that “by 2005, the public in the region will be aware of the problems and the impacts of climate change and what actions they can take at home and at work to reduce the release of greenhouse gases.”2 We do not feel that this goal has been achieved.Recognizing that an adequate public understanding of the impacts of climate change is essential in building the political support for strong policy solutions, state and provincial governments should begin promoting public awareness immediately. Governments should develop comprehensive and coordinated education and outreach programs for schools, parks, government employees, industries, major energy users and the media to communicate why climate change is important to the public. States and provinces should also develop systems to measure the effectiveness of their public education efforts. Finally, individual Governors and Premiers can contribute significantly to improving public awareness of climate change by making it a priority issue when speaking to the public.III. Governors and Premiers Need to Be the Driving Force Behind Strong Climate PolicyIn assessing the region’s progress during this year’s Report Card process, it was found that many of the policy successes have occurred without the leadership of individual Governors and Premiers. Several policy successes, for example, occurred via legislative vehicles for which the Governor failed to openly express his or her support. In many cases, a lot of the good work being accomplished at the state or provincial level is occurring while the Governor or Premier is largely silent on the issue of climate change. In some cases, Governors and Premiers have actually taken public positions on particular issues that are contradictory to the regional emission reduction goals. Although many individuals in the respective state and provincial environmental and energy agencies are committed to making progress in the effort to reduce GHG emissions, much of this good work is happening absent strong leadership from the Governors and Premiers.IV. Governments Need to Involve the Environmental Community as StakeholdersThe 2010 deadline for meeting the short-term emissions reduction goal is fast approaching, and significant progress still needs to be made in reducing emissions from the largest sectors. Therefore, the time is right for the NEG/ECP to begin working more collaboratively with various non-governmental organizations in mapping the way forward regionally and within individual jurisdictions. There has been very little opportunity for the environmental community to formally participate as stakeholders in the implementation process, and such collaboration should be formalized so that information and “best practices” can be shared openly and constructively.ConclusionsAlthough some progress has occurred in the region we are still not yet on a trajectory to meet the short-term goals in the Plan. As the Governors and Premiers reassess our progress towards meeting the Plan’s goals, particular attention needs to be paid to the largest emitting sectors – transportation and electricity generation. It should be clear that the region’s climate change goals will not be achieved through the construction of a wind turbine here and there, or through the state or provincial purchase of energy efficient copiers. These measures alone, although a significant first step – especially in setting a good example – will not enable us to achieve our overall goals. As the Governors and Premiers use 2005 to assess their progress they should see this time as an opportunity to move towards enacting the “next level” of climate policies: those that will significantly reduce emissions from the largest sources.The Governors of the New England states, in particular, have an opportunity to make significant progress in reducing power sector carbon dioxide emissions by releasing a model RGGI rule this fall that calls for a 25% reduction in emissions by 2020. Such a target would be consistent with the goals that have been set forth in the regional Climate Change Action Plan.As was recommended last year, the Governors and Premiers should set a goal of reaching the 75-85% reduction target by the year 2050. To achieve this, it is also necessary to set interim goals between 2020 and 2050 to ensure that necessary action takes place along the way. These goals can be met, but strong and visionary leadership from the region’s Governors and Premiers will be required.1 New England Governors / Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan 2001. August 2001, page 1.2 New England Governors / Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan 2001. August 2001, page 10. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/2005-report-card-on-climate-change-action Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/exxonmobil-exposed-more-drilling-more-global-warming-more-oil-dependence We stand at a crossroads on energy policy in the United States. Our dependence on oil is costing consumers at the pump, draining the economy, endangering our national security, and polluting the environment. For better or worse, the decisions our elected officials and business leaders make to address this problem will have repercussions not only at home but worldwide.The United States is simply too dependent on oil. The United States holds only two percent of the world’s oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world’s total petroleum production.1 Oil pollutes the environment from the point of extraction to combustion, leaving a trail of oil spills, smog-forming air pollution, and global warming in its wake. Consumers also pay a price in the form of unpredictably high gasoline prices at the pump while oil companies are earning record profits.Unfortunately, U.S. policy-makers have responded not with a plan to lead our country away from oil dependence but with more of the same. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress have rejected efforts to cap global warming pollution and make a significant investment in renewable energy technology. They have called for oil and gas drilling in pristine places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the same time, they have rejected efforts to make cars go farther on a gallon of gas—an efficiency measure that would reduce our dependence on oil while saving consumers money at the pump.ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, has not only echoed these short-sighted policy decisions but led the charge to craft and implement them. In contrast to many of its peers in the oil industry, ExxonMobil has acted consistently to move our country backward, not forward, on energy policy.- ExxonMobil is still actively pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.- ExxonMobil continues to deny the urgency of global warming, fund junk science to cloud the issue, and actively inhibit domestic and international efforts to cut global warming pollution.- ExxonMobil is making record-breaking profits because of high gasoline prices but refuses to invest that windfall in renewable energy to ease America’s oil dependence.- ExxonMobil continues to challenge the 1994 court ruling ordering the company to pay $4-$5 billion in punitive damages to fishermen and others injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.In ExxonMobil’s ideal world, the U.S. and other countries would use more and more oil, not less, allowing the company to collect even higher profits in the short term. Automakers would continue to produce gas-guzzling cars despite advances in fuel-efficient vehicles. The U.S. and other countries would relax their environmental rules to allow the company to drill to the ends of the Earth, even in our most precious places. In ExxonMobil’s ideal world, the U.S. and the rest of the world would ignore global warming science and continue to let global warming pollution climb precipitously.ExxonMobil has the power to wreak significant damage on the world’s environment, but it also has the power to direct the oil industry and American decision-makers toward a new energy future. The “Exxpose Exxon” campaign is calling on ExxonMobil to:- Commit to not drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pull out of Arctic Power, the single issue lobbying group dedicated to drilling in the Arctic Refuge.- Support mandatory caps on global warming pollution and stop funding junk science to obscure the facts about global warming.- Pay all of the punitive damages awarded in 1994 to fishermen and others injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.- Save consumers money at the pump and ease our oil dependence by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency and supporting stronger fuel economy standards to make cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline.As the world’s largest and most profitable oil company, ExxonMobil should shed its past as an irresponsible oil company and move forward as a responsible energy company—one committed to more than drilling to the last drop. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/exxonmobil-exposed-more-drilling-more-global-warming-more-oil-dependence Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/cars-and-global-warming-policy-options-to-reduce-connecticuts-global-warming-pollution-from-cars-and-light-trucks Connecticut could significantly http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/cars-and-global-warming-policy-options-to-reduce-connecticuts-global-warming-pollution-from-cars-and-light-trucks Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/stopping-global-warming-begins-at-home-the-case-against-the-use-of-offsets-in-a-regional-power-sector-cap-and-trade-program At the direction of their governors, representatives of nine Northeast states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) are currently working to develop a regional cap-and-trade system designed to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (the leading global warming gas) from power plants in the region. The process, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), holds the promise of significantly reducing the Northeast’s contribution to global warming.A number of stakeholders in the RGGI process have suggested that the region allow owners of power plants to purchase “offsets” (reductions in global warming emissions made at other facilities outside the region or at facilities other than the fossil fuel power plants regulated under the program) to ease compliance with the program or to help achieve further reductions. Supporters of this approach claim that allowing the use of offsets will reduce the cost of global warming emission reductions while achieving similar environmental benefits and broadening the reach of the program to other sectors of the economy.However, allowing offsets to be used to comply with a regional power-sector emission cap could undermine otherwise significant gains in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power generating facilities. There are three main reasons for the Northeast to resist a liberal approach to offsets in setting rules for the cap-and-trade program:1. Offsets reduce the certainty of achieving real emission reductions.• Rules for the use of offsets typically require that offsets deliver emission reductions that are real, surplus, permanent, quantifiable and enforceable. Assuring that offsets meet these criteria is very difficult. For example:- Emission reductions may not be “real” if reductions claimed in one location are simply shifted elsewhere. (For example, as a result of a manufacturer reducing production in one location but increasing it in another location).- Emission reductions may not be “surplus” if the reductions would have occurred anyway. (For example, through the planned replacement of aging equipment with a more energy-efficient model.)- Emission reductions are not easily enforceable if they occur outside the region or in a sector of the economy that is not vigorously regulated.• Assuring compliance with these criteria through aggressive monitoring and verification efforts drives up the administrative costs of the program. Failing to do so reduces the certainty of achieving environmental benefits.2. Offsets reduce the associated benefits of achieving emission reductions within the region.• Requiring that emission reductions be achieved at power plants within the region (as opposed to through the purchase offsets from elsewhere) would encourage the renovation, repowering or closure of some of the region’s oldest, dirtiest and least-efficient power plants.• In 2000, approximately half of all carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the RGGI region came from just 20 power plants. These plants produced twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of power produced as the regional average. They also emitted:- 38 percent of the region’s power-sector emissions of mercury—a neurological toxicant that has triggered fish consumption advisories nationwide- 64 percent of the region’s power-sector emissions of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain- 47 percent of the region’s power-sector emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxidesWhile other air pollution control programs mandate reductions in emissions of these pollutants, the renovation, repowering or retirement of these plants could reduce the overall need for and thus cost of installing emission controls.• A strong regional carbon cap without offsets could provide further momentum in the region’s efforts to achieve a cleaner, more reliable electric system by making greater use of renewable energy and improved energy efficiency. One recent study by Synapse Energy Economics found that such an approach—if adopted nationally—would reduce carbon dioxide emissions while generating $36 billion annually in savings by 2025.3. Offsets will dull, not enhance, momentum for emission reductions in other sectors of the economy.• Supporters of offsets claim that allowing other sectors of the economy to participate in the power-sector program will create the foundation for future emission reduction efforts in those sectors. However, cap-and-trade systems may not be the most appropriate means to reduce emissions in some portions of the economy with large climate impacts and could delay other policies that would be more effective—further limiting the precedent-setting potential of an offset program. Indeed, providing financial rewards to entities outside of the power sector that reduce their greenhouse gas emissions could create a disincentive for those entities to accept a mandatory emissions cap later on.• Achieving real, quantifiable emission reductions in the electric sector in the Northeast would set a powerful example that such reductions are achievable – and encourage the development of programs that produce similar results in other regions and other sectors of the economy.The Northeast should tread carefully before allowing the use of offsets to comply with a power-sector carbon dioxide emission cap. Specifically:• The Northeast governors and their staff involved in the RGGI process should stick with their originally stated goals and principles by not incorporating the use of offsets until after the core cap-and-trade program is designed and the model rule is adopted. As the original Action Plan for the process sets forth, offsets should be considered simultaneously with expansion of the cap to other sources.• States should first determine the cap level they can achieve without the use of offsets. Offsets should only be considered if the carbon dioxide cap adopted through the RGGI process is strong—requiring emission reductions of at least 10 percent below current levels by 2010 and 25 percent below current levels by 2020.• Should offsets eventually be included in a later phase of the program, the Northeast should adopt a conservative approach, requiring that:- Offsets be generated only within states participating in the cap-and-trade program. Offsets from outside RGGI will be difficult to enforce and allowing them will reduce the incentive that other states have to join the program. In addition, dollars paid by consumers in the RGGI states should go towards emissions reductions and investments here at home.- Strong provisions be established to assure that offsets represent real, surplus emission reductions.- Nuclear power projects and other environmentally damaging technologies not be eligible for offsets or otherwise obtain a market advantage for being zero emitting in any cap-and-trade system.- Offsets be limited to no more than five percent of the total number of emission allowances issued. This would allow for demonstration of the viability of an offsets program while limiting the potential damage that a poorly designed program could inflict.- The benefits of offsets be shared equally between those covered by the cap and the environment. For example, a decision to allow 10,000 tons of offsets should be paired with a reduction in the cap of 5,000 tons. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/stopping-global-warming-begins-at-home-the-case-against-the-use-of-offsets-in-a-regional-power-sector-cap-and-trade-program Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/connecticut-responds-to-global-warming-an-analysis-of-connecticuts-emission-reduction-goals-current-strategies-and-opportunities-for-progress Connecticut can make major strides toward http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/connecticut-responds-to-global-warming-an-analysis-of-connecticuts-emission-reduction-goals-current-strategies-and-opportunities-for-progress Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:40:36 -0500 http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/going-nowhere-the-price-consumers-pay-for-stalled-fuel-economy-policies Every Memorial Day weekend, families and friends pile into their cars and drive to the beach, national parks, and other popular tourist destinations. This Memorial Day, with gas prices soaring above $2 per gallon in some parts of the country, consumers will pay more for these weekend trips than in years past.Politicians at the federal level are putting the blame for rising gas prices on everything from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to fuel additive requirements. While OPEC clearly plays a role in determining gas prices, this finger pointing overlooks the fundamental problem: America is too dependent on oil. As long as demand for oil continues to climb, consumers will remain vulnerable to price spikes at the gas pump—whatever their cause.In 1975, in response to the oil embargo, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to increase automobile fuel economy standards, protect consumers from high gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The law recognized that the only way to reduce foreign oil dependence was to reduce U.S. demand. It requires that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) review and increase automobile fuel economy standards as technologically feasible. Although the technology does exist to safely increase automobile fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the next 10 years, NHTSA has not enacted a meaningful increase in fuel economy in almost three decades.As a result, this holiday weekend, Americans will be paying more at the gas pump and using more foreign oil than they should be, given technology available today. Specifically:• Americans will pay almost twice as much at the gas pump—$72 million more—this Memorial Day weekend than they would with a 40 mpg fuel economy standard;• Americans will use 35.7 million more gallons of gas than they would under a 40 mpg fuel economy standard; and• Americans will consume 1.8 million more barrels of foreign oil this Memorial Day weekend than they would with a 40 mpg fuel economy standard.The Bush administration should be looking for ways to save consumers money at the pump and wean us from oil—foreign or domestic—in the long term. Instead of taking advantage of automobile technology to achieve a 40 mpg standard, the administration is pushing an energy policy that emphasizes the technologies of yesterday and has opposed all meaningful increases in fuel economy. In fact, the administration has proposed new fuel economy standards that would make it easier for gas-guzzling SUVs to get even fewer miles per gallon.While consumers continue to pay more at the pump, oil companies are recording huge profits. In 2003, the top five oil companies enjoyed net profits of $60 billion. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has done nothing to protect consumers from oil company mergers and instead has pushed an energy policy that rewards the oil industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies and tax breaks. http://www.connpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/going-nowhere-the-price-consumers-pay-for-stalled-fuel-economy-policies Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600