Navigant Research Blog

Carbon Tax Plan Proposed by Climate Leadership Council

— February 15, 2017

Climate change is a big area of political strife. It was during the election and remains so during the opening weeks of the new administration. While the major political parties generally disagree on the issue and the measures necessary for addressing it, climate change is not a partisan topic. On February 8, a group of Republicans proposed a tax on CO2 emissions in exchange for the repeal of other regulations on the industry. The proposal is led by James Baker III, former Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush, and other members of the Climate Leadership Council. Founded by Ted Halstead, the Climate Leadership Council is an international research and advocacy organization with aims to organize global leaders around new climate solutions based on carbon dividends modified for each of the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting regions.

The Proposal

The Carbon Dividends Plan is based on four main areas:

  • Gradually Increasing Carbon Tax: A $40 tax on every metric ton of CO2 would be imposed and increased steadily over time.
  • Carbon Dividends for All Americans: The estimated revenue of $200 to $300 billion per year generated from this carbon tax would be paid out to Americans through dividend checks, administered by the Social Security Administration. On average, a family of four would receive $2,000 under the plan.
  • Border Carbon Adjustments: The plan proposes border adjustments that would increase the costs of exports and imports to/from countries that do not have a comparable carbon tax.
  • Significant Regulatory Rollback: The majority of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulatory authority over CO2 emissions would be phased out, including an outright appeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The Importance

Many Republications, including President Trump, are publicly opposed to actions on climate change. The Climate Leadership Council is made up of a number of prominent Republications who are not only publicly in favor of action supporting the climate, but also have created a proposal to do so. Besides Baker and Halstead, authors of the proposal include Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush; Martin Feldstein, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan; George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan; and N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

The Impacts

The plan would repeal the CPP put in place by President Obama to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the EPA’s influence on GHG emissions, and will likely see opposition. However, President Trump already plans to repeal the CPP, and while it is unclear if he will be successful, the Carbon Dividends Plan is not needed to assist in that repeal. While the dividends paid back to consumers help with the increased cost of energy, many can argue this would be better if used for increasing renewable energy. If the proposal is rejected and the CPP repealed without an alternative plan in place, it is unlikely actions on climate change will be taken at a federal level.

In June 2016, the House approved a non-binding resolution condemning the idea of a carbon tax. The measure passed 237-163 and was intended to make it more difficult for those that voted against a carbon tax to do so again. President Trump also opposes a carbon tax, believing that President Obama’s CPP was a regulatory overreach of power. It seems unlikely that the current administration and Republication-controlled Congress would vote in favor of such a proposal, although there is hope that some type of alternative could be offered in its place. No matter what the outcome of the Carbon Dividends Plan, there will be many arguing both for and against it.

 

Minimal Fuel Economy Impact from Regulatory Executive Order

— February 6, 2017

The presidential executive order that commands two federal regulations to be rescinded for every new rule enacted probably will not have a direct impact on US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandates, but that does not mean they will not change. At this time, it seems highly probable that at the very least, penalties for failing to meet the standards to increase fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025 will be significantly reduced, and those targets may be slashed as well. Even if that does happen, it may have only a minimal impact on the product development strategies of the auto industry.

Since the CAFE regulations were already in force, the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reaffirmed the standards in the waning days of the prior administration mean they are not directly subject to the new order. In addition, section 5(a)(i) of the order also states that:

Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof …

The current CAFE regulations were enacted under the authority of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by President George W. Bush, which specifically called for a fleet average of at least 35 mpg by 2020. That would appear to make CAFE at least partly exempt from complete elimination without a corresponding repeal from congress. As of December 2016, the unadjusted fleet average in the US market was at 31.2 mpg. The auto industry would only need to get to 35 mpg to meet the congressional mandate.

Technology Development Will Continue, but…

If the new Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao opts to scale back the standards or penalties, the industry will still develop fuel economy and emissions technologies to meet standards set by California and the global market. The problem that the industry faces in the US market is an environment of low fuel prices and an increasing consumer preference for less efficient utility vehicles. Faced with the realities of the marketplace, manufacturers are finding it difficult to sell smaller, thriftier vehicles.

If the national standard were reduced while maintaining California requirements, it would provide automakers with the opportunity to meet market demand in regions such as Texas with higher margin products—such as the full-size pickup trucks and SUVs that are favored there—without resorting to incentives to stimulate demand for small cars. This would allow some subsidization of electrified vehicles in those markets that require them.

Uncertainty and Instability

Ford CEO Mark Fields has claimed that having standards that market demands will not support with sales could end up costing up to 1 million jobs. The CEOs of Ford, GM, and Fiat Chrysler met with President Trump days after he took office to discuss this. The industry would also like to see the elimination of separate standards for California, which are possible under a waiver granted by the EPA through a clause in the Clean Air Act.

Rescinding this waiver could prove problematic. It likely could lead to a battle that would end in the Supreme Court. If it became a state’s rights case, it is not at all clear how even a conservative majority on the court would rule.

This is a situation unlikely to be resolved quickly—and the resulting uncertainty creates instability in the business.

 

As Future of US Energy Becomes Uncertain, China Moves Forward with Clean Energy Plans

— February 2, 2017

Cyber Security MonitoringChina is moving forward on its commitments to cutting back on coal generation. It recently announced that it was canceling the development of 103 coal-fired power plants. The announcement, made by China’s National Energy Administration on January 16, cites the goal of these cancellations as meeting a target in the country’s 13th Five-Year Plan to limit coal-fired power generation capacity to 1,100 GW by 2020. The plan includes canceling projects across 13 provinces, some of which are already under construction.

The cancellation of these plants comes in conjunction with another announcement made by the National Energy Administration stating that it intends to spend more than $360 billion on renewable energy resources, including solar and wind, through 2020. The plan includes creating more than 13 million jobs in the renewable energy sector, curbing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, and reducing the air pollution that hangs over cities like Beijing.

US Shifts Direction

These announcements come at a time when US President Donald Trump’s stated plans to revive the coal industry, scrap the Clean Power Plan, and focus on oil & gas have raised questions about the future direction of the US energy industry. Some experts claim that the Trump administration will only have so much power to change the fate of the coal industry; the economics behind the industry still point to a decline due to renewable resources becoming cheaper and natural gas proving to be a cost-competitive option in the United States’ current energy portfolio.

Based on statements in the first week of the Trump presidency, it seems unlikely that the United States will assume a leadership role in mitigating climate change. In fact, this shift in focus means that the United States risks losing ground to China in a race to lead the world forward in decreasing carbon emissions. This differs from the status quo just over a year ago at the Paris Climate Summit, where the United States and China both committed to fighting climate change.

Today, President Trump’s past claims that climate change is a Chinese hoax and suggestions of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement could create a space for China to take on a leadership role in clean power. While the country still has a long way to go to prove its commitments to the environment, in the past few years it has made significant progress in terms of reducing its emissions, curbing coal generation, and ramping up investments in renewable energy resources. China has shown potential in its ability to lead the world toward a low carbon future.

 

Federal Carbon Regulation Likely Dissolves, but Some States Fill the Void

— January 13, 2017

Cyber Security MonitoringA version of this article was originally published on Energy Central.

After months of litigation, a decision by the DC Circuit Court on the future of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) is expected to be announced early this year. Congressional Republicans and incoming president Donald Trump were both critical of the CPP on the campaign trail during the 2016 election, so the outlook for the CPP is bleak. The demise of the plan seems likely, though it will not be quick, however, as states that support the rule have promised to fight to protect it. New York, California, and other states are stepping up to fill the CPP’s void and continue to work toward decarbonization.

States Stepping Up

Continued progress is expected in greenhouse gas emissions reductions in New York as the state has implemented the Clean Energy Standard (CES), Reforming the Energy Vision (REV), and other emissions-related initiatives. The CES targets the use of renewables for 50% of electricity consumption by 2030. Navigant’s 2017 outlook for New York shows significant increases in energy efficiency, wind, and solar over previous cases without the CES. Some of these additions are already happening around the state, and growth is expected to continue through at least 2030. Additional initiatives at the state level that put an emphasis on distributed energy lead us to forecast that nearly half of all the solar capacity added in the state through 2040 will be distributed solar. New York is a member of the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) along with states from New England and PJM. As New York increases its deployment of energy efficiency and renewables, CO2 prices on the RGGI market will be driven down and other states in the market will be affected. This would also otherwise affect energy efficiency and renewable development in other RGGI states, except that these are mostly driven by other state imperatives.

California has also been a leader in decarbonization efforts for many years, and it is not expected that leadership from California will taper off anytime soon. California’s cap-and-trade market for CO2 is linked to Quebec, with plans to link with other Canadian provinces in the near future. The state is also on track to meet its aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets of 33% by 2020 and 50% by 2030.

Higher Emissions

Even though state policies are expected to continue to push the grid toward decarbonization, without a federal regulation on carbon, overall emissions from the industry will be higher. Without the CPP in place, MISO and other areas are expected to see less coal capacity retire. However, the economics of some older coal plants and even a few nuclear plants make it unlikely they will continue to operate through 2040.

Uncertainty in the industry will likely continue, and can make planning for the future difficult, particularly in a sector where planning is so important and highly regulated. Navigant’s 2017 Integrated Energy Market Outlook and Industry Trends webinar on January 25 will analyze how fundamental policy shifts are expected to impact coal retirements, energy, capacity, and prices as well as the potential impacts regarding supply and transmission expansion for gas and power over the next 25 years.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Digital Utility Strategies, Electric Vehicles, Energy Technologies, Finance & Investing, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Transportation Efficiencies

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"Policy & Regulation","path":"\/tag\/policy-regulation","date":"2\/17\/2017"}