

This ACC Web-Edu Program addresses EPA’s recently approved rule requiring annual compilation and reporting of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The Rule, which mandates an inventory process that must commence January 1st of 2010, is intended to guide the establishment of a point of regulation for implementing a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system. The requirements apply to all participants in the coal industry—including mines, transporters, and major users, including power plants—that emit more than 25,000 tons of GHGs, or that produce a quantity of fuel which, when combusted, will emit more than 25,000 tons. Two experts in GHG management in mining and energy will discuss the rule, its requirements and compliance strategies.
A just released Charles Rivers Associates International and Coalition for Affordable American Energy report demonstrates that the proposed climate provisions within the Obama Administration's proposed FY 2010 budget will have profound negative impacts on energy availability, energy costs, and overal economic health of the country.
The Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE) is made up of over 200 American businesses, industry associations, and Chambers of Commerce. Specifically, the report notes,
Impact on the Economy of the Climate Provision in the Obama Administration FY 2010 Budget Proposal
The report continues by noting that the U.S. energy sector will suffer substantial setbacks as it is reorganized to meet legislative and regulatory requirements.
Impact on the Economy of the Climate Provision in the Obama Administration's FY 2010 Budget Proposal
Readers can download the full report on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.
Note: Jason Hayes, ACC Communications Director, will take part in a modertated discussion with a representative of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. They will discuss the topic of "clean coal" in the final afternoon session of the first day.
The Lewis & Clark Law School website describes the Greening the Grid conference,
Development of renewable energy sources has become one of the major political and legal issues of our time. Due to concerns related to climate change, energy independence, and escalating fuel and electricity prices, many policymakers, environmental advocates, and entrepreneurs have called for the United States to adopt a new national energy policy that promotes use of renewable energy sources. However, others argue that renewable energy sources will never adequately meet the country’s escalating energy needs. This conference will explore the ongoing debate regarding the U.S. energy policies and consider how the country may revise its energy system to promote sustainable energy sources.
GAO Report on DOE Restructuring of FutureGenA February 2009 GAO report on the Department of Energy, FutureGen project describes how the decision to restructure the project in 2008 was based on inaccurate cost estimates.
While the initial $950 million estimated price was based in constant 2004 dollars, the later $1.8 billion estimate was a life cycle cost out to 2017 with inflation accounted for
If the same estimate process were used, the increased cost of the project would be $1.3 billion (not $1.8 billion), an increase of 370 million (+39%). Given the rising costs of steel, cement, labor, and the faltering economic conditions, the 39% price increase appears far more reasonable.
From the "Results in Brief" section of the report,
DOE did not use sufficient information to support its decision to restructure FutureGen. According to our recent work and best practices, a decision to terminate or significantly restructure an ongoing program should be informed by timely and sufficient information on the costs, benefits, and risks of such a decision. DOE did not prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs, benefits, and risks of its decision to replace the original FutureGen with the restructured program. DOE made its decision based, in large part, on its conclusion that construction and material costs for the original program would continue escalating substantially in the indefinite future and that life-cycle costs were likely to double. However, according to economic forecasting organizations, such as DOE’s Energy Information Administration, significant cost escalations for building power plants, in general, do not typically continue in the long run. Also, DOE reached this conclusion by comparing its cost estimate for the original FutureGen ($950 million in constant 2004 dollars) with the Alliance’s 2006 estimated life-cycle costs for the program through 2017 (about $1.8 billion, considering inflation). In explaining his decision to restructure FutureGen, the Secretary of Energy noted that the projected program cost had “nearly doubled,” from $950 million to $1.8 billion. However, that assertion did not take into account a major difference between the two estimates: one was based on constant dollars and the other on inflated dollars. Our analysis indicates that the Alliance’s estimate in constant 2005 dollars would be approximately $1.3 billion—an increase of about $370 million, or about 39 percent, over DOE’s estimate, not a near doubling of costs. As DOE’s restructuring decision was not based on a comprehensive analysis of the associated costs, benefits, and risks, DOE has no assurance that the restructured program is the best option to accomplish the goal of promoting the accelerated and widespread commercial advancement of CCS. In contrast to the restructuring decision, FE identified and analyzed 13 other options for incremental, cost-saving changes to the original program, such as reducing the CO2 capture requirement. While FE did not consider all of these options to be viable, it either recommended or noted several of them for consideration, each with potential savings from $30 million to $55 million.
A November 1 article in POWER Magazine relates the findings of recent MIT research which investigates the rapid development of coal-fueled generation throughout China.
Canadian Centre for Policy Studies: Eight Arguments against a Carbon TaxIn this Canadian Centre for Policy Studies report (released Sept. 2008), David Murrell reviews a list of reasons why he believes a proposed carbon tax would be damaging to the Canadian economy.
After describing the basics of the proposed carbon tax, Murrell provides eight reasons he believes the carbon tax will not achieve its stated goals: