With the text of the American Power Act now available, various groups are beginning the task of evaluating what the bill includes and, just as importantly, what it leaves out. (You can read the full text of the proposed act here as a pdf file, or a summary of the bill here). Already there is a wide range of opinion over this bill, with industry and environmental groups on both sides.
Today the executive director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, is with us for a live Q&A starting... right now. So please join in and ask what you'd like to know about the proposed bill, the Sierra Club, and how they are interpreting what they've seen so far.
To get the conversation started, I asked Mr. Brune a few questions about the American Power Act.
Q: The act doesn't appear to set emissions caps for heavy industry, hands out free emissions waivers to utilities, and sets what appear to be very generous targets for other sources of emissions. Though there's a stated goal of achieving a 17% reduction by 2020, as it stands, are you confident that this legislation would actually serve to reduce the production of CO2?
Michael Brune: The bill creates an economy wide cap and trade program that covers the entire basket of greenhouse gases. It does cover heavy industry, although, not until 2016, three years after other sectors are regulated. We are not completely confident that the targets will be achieved and have been advocating for a few important changes to the bill to ensure that the bill achieves its goals:
· EPA should be given an equal seat (with USDA) in the crafting of the domestic offset provisions.
· EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Q: The bill expands potential areas for offshore drilling and appears to offer states incentives for opening their waters through enhanced profit-sharing. Though there are mechanisms for states to try and block drilling offshore in neighboring states, the mechanism appears to be very favorable to opening areas. Is this at all viable in the face of what we're currently seeing in the Gulf?
MB: We are calling for a reinstatement of the presidential moratorium and are working with the administration to secure protections for our oceans.
This bill does not achieve our goal of protecting our oceans, and the revenue sharing provision increases the risk of drilling. Thankfully, the bill does not expand offshore drilling, and does not call for leasing in areas previously protected by the Congressional drilling moratorium. The bill also provides a temporary moratorium on any new offshore drilling until the cause of the BP Oil Disaster is determined and the Secretary of the Interior certifies it is safe.
The bill outlines key protections, which need to be expanded: Liability Mechanism, Improved Safety Measures and Clean Up Technology. The bill calls for all three, but there are no details in the bill.
Impact Studies. Allows impacted states to veto drilling in nearby states eligible to receive revenue sharing. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to study the environmental and economic impact of a potential oil spill on neighboring states eligible for revenues sharing before drilling can occur. For example, if the DOI study documents that an oil spill from Virginia would pollute beaches in New Jersey, its legislature could pass a law vetoing drilling off the coast of Virginia.
Allows states to establish a 75-mile drilling buffer. There is currently no buffer zones in place for the Atlantic or Pacific coasts; the bill gives states the opportunity to petition the Department of the Interior for a 75-mile no leasing, no drilling, buffer zone.
Q: The bill contains a series of rebates for users of electricity, fuel oil, and other fuels to offset any potential rise in price. Wouldn't this tend to reduce any effect the bill has to drive efficiency and conservation?
MB: We share this concern. But the answer is that, in part, it depends on how the money is refunded. This concern will be mitigated if utility regulators structure the rebate in a way that returns the money as a separate line on the bill, rewarding customers that conserve energy.
We are also pushing Senators to require that a set percentage of the electric utility revenue be dedicated to energy efficiency. Currently all of the programs, except the electric utility allocation, require that a percentage of the funds be used for energy efficiency.
Q: With the loss of Senator Graham's support on this bill, and outspoken criticism on the right of any measure aimed at global warming, is there a sense that this is once again a piece of legislation in which Democrats have negotiated in advance to take positions that are at best moderate, if not already right-leaning, without gaining a single vote? Considering the record of the health care reform bill, how likely is it that the bill will become more progressive, rather than more fossil-fuel supportive, from here?
MB: We share this concern. This bill was negotiated with Senator Graham and the oil and utility industries. The disaster in the gulf changed the political outlook for the bill. We will work to improve the legislation as it moves forward. We are not naive about our chances, but we do believe it can be strengthened before it becomes law. We are particularly hopeful that a strong title can be added that will address our oil addiction for the first time. We also believe there is a real potential to strengthen the energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions in the bill. But only time will tell how much it can be change.
Q: If the bill came to the floor as currently written, would the Sierra Club view it as a step forward or a step back? Would you support this bill?
MB: The Sierra Club is a democratic institution that carefully reviews major legislation before we support or oppose. We will not make that kind of a decision until we have a more final draft. For now we are working with our members to develop a strategy to strengthen this legislation.
Please welcome Executive Director Brune to the site and jump in which your questions.