Weathervane - Federal Approach

PRINT this page
EMAIL this Page
CONTACT the Author
VIEW the Glossary

Environment and Energy Priorities: A View from Congress
Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert
An RFF Policy Leadership Forum
(June 23, 2005)

The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States
Dallas Burtraw and Karen Palmer
Discussion Paper 03-15
April 2003

Voluntary versus Mandatory Approaches to Climate Change Mitigation
Thomas P. Lyon
Issue Brief 03-01
February 2003

National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years
Sheila M. Cavanagh, Robert W. Hahn, and Robert N. Stavins
Discussion Paper 01-38
September 2001

Ancillary Benefits of Reduced Air Pollution in the United States from Moderate Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies in the Electricity Sector
Dallas Burtraw, Alan Krupnick, Karen Palmer, Anthony Paul, Michael Toman, and Cary Bloyd
Discussion Paper 01-61
December 2001

Using Emissions Trading to Regulate U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Basic Policy Design and Implementation Issues
Carolyn Fischer, Michael Toman, and Suzi Kerr
Climate Issue Brief #10
June 1998

Using Emissions Trading to Regulate U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview of Policy Design and Implementation Issues
Carolyn Fischer, Suzi Kerr, and Michael A. Toman
Discussion Paper 98-40
July 1998

Home

Solutions and Actions

United States

Federal Approach

The development and implementation of domestic United States climate policy historically has been to a great extent carried out by executive branch initiatives dating to the Climate Action Plan of the Clinton administration in 1993. The Climate Action Plan, like those of the administrations that followed, called for a variety of voluntary efforts.

While the rest of the world is struggling to figure out how to meet its Kyoto commitments, the U.S. federal government continues to take a different approach toward controlling greenhouse gases.

In Congress, several bills recently were drafted to cut carbon emissions. The most notable, sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) would have applied the mechanism that the Clean Air Act of 1990 imposed on another pollutant and put limits on power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide. It was defeated when it came to a vote in June 2005, but it was immediately followed by a sense-of-the-Senate resolution declaring that greenhouse gases are clearly a cause of global warming and the time has come for Congress to take action. In August 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed, continuing support for technology development.

On February 2, 2006, Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, released a white paper identifying challenges to implementing a mandatory, national, market-based greenhouse gas emission reduction policy. The document focuses on two key questions: By whom and where to regulate emissions, and whether and how to freely distribute emission allowances to mitigate costs.

By whom and where to regulate emissions confronts the question of whether climate change policy should be economywide or sector-based. That is, should the same program provide incentives in the transportation sector and the power generation sector? If sectors are excluded, why? The document notes that no single sector dominates emissions, and an economywide program has the advantage of efficiently seeking the cheapest reductions opportunities. A related question concerns where emissions should be monitored and compliance regulated. Unlike other pollutants, end-of-pipe controls are not a practical option with carbon dioxide, and it is possible to regulate upstream fossil fuel production, downstream emissions, or anywhere in between. Upstream regulation makes it easier to implement an economywide program; downstream regulation is much more familiar in the United States.

The harder question addressed in the document is how to distribute allowances. A large number of choices are laid out: technology incentives, adaptation, consumer protection, set-asides, fossil fuel producers, electric generators, energy-intensive industries, and other industries. The paper raises the issue of fairness and how costs ought to, and are like to, be distributed. It also considers other goals of the program -- such as technology development.

The document does not answer these questions, but rather tees them up for stakeholder comments. In the coming weeks, we should expect to hear both more from those stakeholders as well as from the Senate Energy Committee as they begin processing that input.

		Assessing U.S. Policy Options: A Report Summarizing Work at RFF as part of the Inter-Industry Climate Policy Forum Ray Kopp and William A. Pizer An RFF Report Fall 2007



		Combating Global Warming Is taxation or cap-and-trade the better strategy for reducing greenhouse emissions? Ian W.H. Parry and William A. Pizer Regulation Vol. 30, No. 3 Fall 2007



		Ray Kopp on E&E TV's OnPoint Weathervane Feature \| September 2007 Senior Fellow Ray Kopp shares insight into Congressional climate discussions and the prospects for economy-wide climate legislation.



		Slow Climate Change, Yes. But Use Tools that Are Efficient Billy Pizer Op-Ed \| June 2007 Senior Fellow Billy Pizer explains why Congress shouldn't solely use sector-based mandates such as CAFE or renewable portfolio standards and instead should focus on more cost-effective, economy-wide solutions that put a price on carbon.



		U.S. Climate Mitigation in the Context of Global Stabilization Richard G. Newell and Daniel Hall Weathervane Backgrounder \| May 2007 This Backgrounder examines recent studies of long-term stabilization scenarios to understand whether and how near-term U.S. climate policy action can translate into long-term, environmentally significant climate outcomes.



		Assessing the Costs of Domestic Regulatory Proposals Joseph E. Aldy Weathervane Backgrounder \| May 2007 This Backgrounder examines the cost of domestic policy approaches to mitigating CO2 and other GHG emissions by examining existing analyses by two models (EIA and MIT) of various national emissions mitigation scenarios.



		Modeling the Effects of Changes in New Source Review on National SO2 and NOx Emissions from Electricity-Generating Units David A. Evans, Benjamin F. Hobbs, Craig Oren, and Karen L. Palmer 07-01 \| March 2007



		Comparison and Analysis: Five Recent Senate Bills Ray Kopp and Billy Pizer RFF Web Feature February 2007 Senior Fellows Ray Kopp and Billy Pizer analyze Senate bills proposing mandatory GHG limits.



		A U.S. Perspective on Future Climate Regimes William A. Pizer 07-04 \| February 2007 Senior Fellow Billy Pizer address the building momentum for federal climate change policy in the United States and how this may impact international negotiations.



		Climate Change Policy in the U.S. 2006 William A. Pizer Bridges, Vol. 9 April 2006 Senior Fellow Billy Pizer examines in Bridges how the bipartisan Senatorial team of Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman might break new ground in U.S. climate change policy.



		RFF Scholar Speaks at Senate Climate Change Conference William A. Pizer Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources Climate Conference April 4, 2006 RFF Senior Fellow Billy Pizer spoke on April 4th at the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources Climate Conference hosted by Senators Domenici and Bingaman.



		RFF Scholars Respond to Senators Domenici's and Bingaman's White Paper William Pizer, Karen Palmer, and Dallas Burtraw A Weathervane Web Commentary March 21, 2006 RFF researchers Billy Pizer, Karen Palmer, and Dallas Burtraw provide comments on "Design Elements of a Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Regulatory System."



		Climate Policy Ain't Dead Yet Richard D. Morgenstern A Weathervane Commentary March 15, 2006 RFF Senior Fellow Richard Morgenstern argues that climate change policies should include market-based technology incentives and "safety valve" mechanisms to moderate compliance costs.



		Combating Global Warming One Car at a Time: CO2 Emissions Labels for Cars and Light Trucks Katherine N. Probst March 2006 Senior Fellow Kate Probst proposes a CO2 emissions label for new motor vehicles.



		A Climate Policy Tipping Point Ray Kopp Weathervane Commentary November 21, 2005 The actions of industry, several states, and conservative christians suggest a political sea change in U.S. climate policy.



		Testimony on Senate Amendment 866 Richard D. Morgenstern Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources September 20, 2005 U.S. Priorities on Climate Change Policy Following the Kyoto Protocol: Senior Fellow Richard Morgenstern's congressional testimony highlights shifts in thinking, changes in direction (September 20, 2005)



		The Energy Marathon: What Has Congress Wrought? An RFF Web Feature Robert Fri August 17, 2005 Visiting Scholar Robert Fri reviews the state of U.S. energy policy in the wake of the Energy Policy Act that President Bush signed into law on August 8, 2005.



		From SO2 to Greenhouse Gases: Trends and Events Shaping Future Emissions Trading Programs in the United States Joseph A. Kruger Discussion Paper 05-20 June 2005



		What Is the United States Doing About Climate Change? Everyone Else Is Coping With Kyoto William A. Pizer Resources, Spring 2005



		Technology Incentives Alone Will Not Sufficiently Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Richard D. Morgenstern Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources April 14, 2005 In testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senior Fellow Richard Morgenstern urges broad-based policy action on climate change.



		Energy Demand in the 21st Century: Are Congress and the Executive Branch Meeting the Challenge? Paul R. Portney House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources March 16, 2005



		Rethinking Fossil Fuels: The Necessary Step toward Practical Climate Policy Resources, Summer 2004, Raymond J. Kopp If global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are to be stabilized, the world's largest current emitter -- the United States -- along with other industrialized countries must radically curtail the emissions of GHGs, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2). This means that the current primary energy sources of the United States -- which both drive its electricity and transport sectors and are responsible for carbon dioxide emissions -- must change. But change to what and how?