Category: Politics

The Path Ahead for U.S. Climate Change Policy

It is clear that the Biden Administration is devoting substantial attention to addressing climate change, certainly in comparison with the previous Trump administration, but there is a long road ahead for the development of substantive domestic policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. That is one of the messages that emerges most clearly from the most recent webinar in our series, Conversations on Climate Change and Energy Policy, sponsored by the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements (HPCA).   A video recording (and transcript) of the entire webinar is available here.

As you know, in this webinar series we feature leading authorities on climate change policy, whether from academia, the private sector, NGOs, or government.  In this most recent Conversation, I was fortunate to engage with someone who has solid experience in at least three of these sectors – academia, government, and the NGO community.  I’m talking about Nathaniel (Nat) Keohane, my former student, co-author, and friend.

Nat Keohane is Senior Vice President for Climate at the Environmental Defense Fund.  In the Obama administration, from 2001 to 2012, he served as Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Environment, and before that, he was Chief Economist at EDF.  Going back a bit further, he was an Associate Professor at the Yale School of Management, and before that, he earned his PhD degree in Political Economy & Government at Harvard University, and his BA degree in History and Environmental Studies at Yale University.

Our wide-ranging conversation took place just one week after the Biden administration’s Earth Day Climate Summit (April 22-23), and so it was a very good time to talk about the newly-announced U.S. pledge – its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement – and about how the target in the NDC, a 50-52% percent reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below the 2005 level by the year 2030, might be accomplished. 

More broadly, Nat Keohane shares his insights on both the science and the politics affecting climate policy, and his hopes for the upcoming UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP-26), scheduled for November in Glasgow, Scotland.

“President Biden and his team hit the ground running immediately,” Keohane says, referring to the administration’s move to reenter the Paris Agreement on January 20th. “But there’s still a fair amount of skepticism in the rest of the world…and [there is] a need for the U.S. to demonstrate that it’s serious [about its commitment to climate policy].”

Keohane goes on to suggest that the ambitious new U.S. NDC will serve to incentivize other large emitters to increase the ambition of their pledges prior to the upcoming COP.  Both Canada and Japan have already done so, Keohane notes, and there are hopes that China, India, and Brazil may follow suit if US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry is successful in his climate diplomacy efforts with foreign leaders.

Here at home, Nat acknowledges that the Biden Administration faces an uphill battle passing significant climate legislation, but he argues that it can take very meaningful steps forward by regulating methane gas emissions, increasing investment in green technologies, and eventually building public support for a national carbon price, which would both stabilize GHG emissions and raise revenues.

“If we are going to really address climate change and reduce CO2 emissions at the scale and scope and pace that we need to, both to solve the climate problem and to meet the President’s [GHG reduction] target … the best way to do it would include some sort of limit and price on carbon pollution across the economy.”

Keohane is very aware that the “the politics of a carbon price on Capitol Hill are challenging,” but he believes that a carbon-pricing approach could be sold to the American people as a way to raise significant revenues, as much as a quarter of a trillion dollars a year. “That’s a lot of money, and there aren’t a lot of other sources of revenue that come up with 250 billion dollars,” he says.

A carbon border adjustment – an import fee levied by countries with ambitious climate policies on goods manufactured in countries with no or less ambitious climate policies – is a controversial proposal that many countries and regions, including the European Union, are seriously considering (and in the case of the EU, moving to implement).  Keohane calls it a “blunt force instrument … used to ideally help create incentives for other countries to act and to increase their ambition … but I don’t think we should think of it as a fine-tuned way to establish a carbon price that fairly addresses the carbon content of imported goods.”

As nations around the world prepare for COP-26 (assuming it does take place), Keohane expresses his hope that the U.S. will continue to leverage bilateral negotiations to encourage other large countries, particularly China, to increase their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) before arriving in Glasgow.  But, interestingly, Keohane also argues that climate leaders need to rethink the role of the COP moving forward.

“I don’t know exactly what that looks like. Maybe it involves more engagement among countries with best-practice sharing. Maybe it involves bringing in civil society or businesses to talk about implementation, but we need to think creatively,” he remarks. “Rather than have the object of every COP be some negotiated text in a world in which we’ve got the text … what we need is implementation.”

All of this and much more can be seen and heard in our full Conversation here.  I hope you will check it out.

Previous episodes in this series – Conversations on Climate Change and Energy Policy – have featured Meghan O’Sullivan’s thoughts on Geopolitics and Upheaval in Oil Markets, Jake Werksman’s assessment of the European Union’s Green New Deal, Rachel Kyte’s examination of “Using the Pandemic Recovery to Spur the Clean Transition,” Joseph Stiglitz’s reflections on “Carbon Pricing, the COVID-19 Pandemic, and Green Economic Recovery,” Joe Aldy describing “Lessons from Experience for Greening an Economic Stimulus,” Jason Bordoff commenting on “Prospects for Energy and Climate Change Policy under the New U.S. Administration,” and Ottmar Edenhofer talking about “The Future of European Climate Change Policy.”

Watch for an announcement about our next webinar. You will be able to register in advance for the event on the website of the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements.  

Share

A New Day for U.S. Climate Change Policy?

There is certainly much enthusiasm and great expectations on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean regarding what can be expected from the new U.S. administration’s climate change policy.  I offered somewhat modest expectations in an essay posted at this blog in mid-January before the Biden-Harris team was inaugurated.  But now – in early April – major appointments have been made, executive orders announced, and new policies floated.  So, this is a good time take a preliminary look at what has been accomplished in the first 10 weeks or so of the administration.

For that purpose, an exceptionally qualified observer is my friend and colleague, and most recent podcast guest, Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she founded both the Environmental and Energy Law Program and the School’s Emmett Environmental Law Clinic (which was directed for many years by Wendy Jacobs, who sadly passed away in February after a long illness).

Professor Freeman worked in the Obama administration, and before that she was closely involved in the Massachusetts vs. EPA court case that eventually led – via a U.S. Supreme Court decision – to EPA’s endangerment finding in the Obama years, which precipitated policy action on climate change under the authority of the Clean Air Act.  You won’t be surprised that she pulls no punches in her comments on the Trump administration’s moves in the environmental realm, nor in her judgments and hopes regarding the Biden administration.  You can hear our complete conversation in the Podcast here.

In these podcasts – “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program – I talk with well-informed people from academia, government, industry, and NGOs.  Jody Freeman very much belongs in this group, as one of the world’s leading authorities on environmental law, a former Federal government official, and a participant in deliberations in private industry.

Jody Freeman has this to say about the previous administration:

“The Trump Administration unraveled, weakened, or rescinded every climate regulation that the Obama Administration had put in place. And they went beyond that to weaken many other environmental rules too. And so, it’s an across-the-board effort to pull environmental protection back as much as possible and weaken the agencies that are responsible for putting rules in place to protect public health and to address climate change.  In environment, climate, energy, it’s really hard to think of a major policy that was left untouched.”

On the other hand, Professor Freeman commends the Biden Administration’s early actions to reverse much of the climate policy damage caused by the previous administration.

“The president signed two sweeping executive orders on climate change within the first month. And they encompass everything you could possibly do with the agencies of the federal government, from how the Treasury Department finances overseas projects to how the Agriculture Department sends money to farmers. The administration is on the hunt for all of the policies that any agency can use to support its clean energy agenda.”

However, looking ahead, she recognizes that the Biden administration probably does not have the necessary votes in the Senate to pass any meaningful legislation placing a price on carbon.  Short of that, she says there are many other actions the administration can take on climate and energy policy.

“Presidents like to use executive branch power. So, you can count on the Biden Administration to be trying to deploy all of the levers, all of the tools that it can use. And they include adopting new rules … for power plant emissions of CO2, adopting new rules for car and truck emissions, adopting sector by sector rules that EPA has the authority to do.  There are other agencies too, like the Department of Energy, which sets appliance efficiency standards. The Department of the Interior regulates extraction of oil and gas on public lands. You’ve already seen them freeze new leases on public lands, and they’re going to favor wind and solar siting on public lands.”

When I ask her about the negative perception of the fossil fuel industry among many climate policy advocates in the United States, Professor Freeman, who sits on the Board of Directors of ConocoPhillips, remarks that there are signs of progress on the horizon.

“I think the industry is in a moment of transition. I do see, for example, the European oil and gas companies are already making pledges and investments in alternative business models.  By no means are we down the road far enough or fast enough, but you can see that they’re starting to think about becoming different kinds of companies over time. And I think the U.S. companies are following suit.”

My complete conversation with Professor Freeman is the 22nd episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Reflecting on the Causes and Consequences of the Texas Energy Crisis

In mid-February of this year, a series of severe winter storms swept across the United States, due to the jet stream dipping particularly far south, stretching from Washington State to Texas, and running back north along the East Coast, allowing a polar vortex to bring exceptionally cold air across the country, and spawning multiple storms along the jet stream track.  This weather phenomenon resulted in record low temperatures throughout the state of Texas, with temperatures in Dallas, Austin and San Antonio falling below temperatures in Anchorage, Alaska!

            In Texas, this led both to dramatic increases in electricity demand for heating, and – at the same time – drastic reductions in electricity supply, as natural gas, nuclear, and wind generating facilities faced a variety of restrictions.  This severe supply-demand imbalance on the Texas electricity grid resulted in what has already come to be called the “Texas energy crisis of 2021,” which according to my most recent podcast guest, William Hogan, was of “unprecedented” scale, scope, and duration.

            William Hogan is the Raymond Plank Research Professor of Global Energy Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he directs research in the Harvard Electricity Policy Group.  You can hear our complete conversation in the Podcast here.

In these podcasts – “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program – I talk with well-informed people from academia, government, industry, and NGOs.  Bill Hogan surely belongs in this group, as one of the world’s leading authorities on electricity markets, the founding director of Stanford University’s Energy Modeling Forum, and the founding Research Director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group.

Among the questions I discuss with Bill Hogan in the podcast are these: 

  • There have been previous electricity grid problems and blackouts – in Texas, California, New York – as well as in other parts of the world.  What made this one so different?
  • What were the the supply-side causes, including for generation from natural gas, nuclear, and renewables?  What about the fact that Texas has its own grid, with limited interconnections?  Was that a major problem?
  • On the demand side, if the state’s high reliance on electric heating was part of the problem, what does that say, if anything, about the fact that California and other jurisdictions seem to be moving toward prohibit natural gas connections for new home construction, because of climate change concerns?
  • Was the nature of the Texas electricity market and its regulation (or lack thereof) a significant factor in the crisis?
  • What about the consequences of the Texas crisis, such as the incredibly high electricity prices faced by some of those who were fortunate enough not to lose their power? 

As I noted above, the Texas energy crisis unfolded when a convergence of winter storms produced record-cold temperatures across much of the central part of the United States, reaching as far south as the Lone Star State. The sustained cold caused significant damage to energy infrastructure in Texas, knocking down transmission lines, freezing natural gas pipelines and pumps, severely pinching supplies, and creating blackouts throughout much of the state.  At the same time, the exceptionally cold weather resulted in spiking demand, as electric heating was cranked up by consumers. Hogan describes the scale, scope, and duration of the crisis as “unprecedented,” characterizing it as a one-in-one-hundred-year event.

“It’s a very tragic situation. Terrible. And when you’re dealing with systems like this, you can plan for some things. And then, when you get outside the envelope, you’re in trouble,” he says.

In our conversation, Bill describes how this situation resulted in a severe energy supply/demand imbalance during which hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses were left without power for days, and some of those who remained on the grid were at risk of receiving extremely high electricity bills (because they had previously opted for contracts which passed on wholesale costs plus a relatively small monthly charge).

Some observers have pointed fingers at Texas’ relatively less regulated energy market as the culprit for the crisis that unfolded, but Professor Hogan largely disagrees.

“One of the claims that has been very popular in certain press articles is that Texas has a free market in electricity. And you can’t have a free market in electricity because of problems like this. And that’s a mischaracterization of what has happened in Texas,” he says. “There are differences in the level of choice. But there are also reliability conditions, operating reserves that are imposed, transmission constraints that you have to respect. So, it’s a complicated mix of engineering and economics. And you have more choice, perhaps, in Texas than you have elsewhere. But I think it’s a mistake to characterize it as just having no regulation.”

Hogan agrees that the Texas energy grid is not equipped to withstand such pronounced and sustained cold snaps as the one in February, but he argues that the state’s electricity market design, which is highly responsive to typical changes in supply and demand conditions under normal circumstances, is one that is admired and hence being replicated in other parts of the country.

“You see evidence in the Western energy imbalance market that’s expanding rapidly because of the pressure coming from renewables. And you see the Southeast electricity and energy market proposed a couple of weeks ago, which is trying to accelerate the amount of trading and the amount of market operations. All of these things are moving in the direction of the Texas energy market,” he says. In general, Hogan concludes, the Texas electricity market design isn’t “as broken as people have claimed.”

My complete conversation with Professor Hogan is the 21st episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share