The post C2ES Comments on Proposed EPA Power Plant Rule appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

While many of us who’ve been policy advocates for years still tend to question the workings of this long, complicated process, it’s still important to understand how the federal government spends our tax dollars, and how nonprofit organizations like C2ES can help ensure those taxpayer dollars go toward addressing the most pressing needs.

The process starts when the president releases a budget request for the coming fiscal year. The president’s budget request (PBR) is a coordinated effort between the White House, federal agencies, and the Office of Management and Budget. It is supposed to be released in February but is often delayed. The document is directed at Congress and provides the executive branch’s recommendation for how much money the government should spend on individual federal programs, how much tax revenue it should collect, and how much of a deficit it should run. It is important to note that the PBR is just a request, it does not carry any binding authority unless Congress acts on it.

Once the PBR is unveiled, Congress responds by creating its own plan , the congressional budget resolution. Both chambers of Congress release versions that set the total level of funding that Congress can distribute among all government agencies and programs for the fiscal year. After the budget resolution is established, and total funding levels are determined for each appropriations subcommittee. These subcommittees draft 12 individual appropriation bills that detail how much money each federal agency and its programs will receive.

To develop each appropriations bill, members of the House and Senate meet with stakeholders, including constituents, community groups, non-profit organizations, and academia, to better understand priorities and how much federal support is needed. This is where advocates like C2ES have a chance to support federal funding and programs that bolster clean energy development and deployment.

This year, C2ES advocated for several priority programs supporting research, development, and demonstration for clean energy technologies within the Department of Energy (DOE). Specifically, C2ES supported a meaningful increase for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy which supports deployments or demonstrations for decarbonizing the electricity sector, industrial sector, agriculture sector, transportation, and buildings. We also urged increased support for programs that would increase hydrogen production, make biofuels more affordable, and invest in carbon capture innovation. All these programs have the potential to strengthen low- and zero-carbon technologies.

From there, it’s important to identify members of Congress who care about these specific priorities. To encourage their support for these programs, we submitted formal requests detailing why we were asking them to fund these programs at the necessary investment levels. The members of the Energy and Water Subcommittees of the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations Committees are pivotal decisionmakers for these programs, as they are solely responsible for drafting the subcommittee bill that includes the Department of Energy. As such, they are inundated by requests from stakeholders who want to offer input on the direction and size of these programs, including C2ES. A principal task for the staff responsible for appropriations is weighing those requests against the spending limits as determined by the budget resolution and each subcommittee’s respective budget allocation.

As part of that process, advocates work to meet with their members of Congress and staff to reinforce their formal requests. This is a great opportunity to have a back-and-forth with senators and representatives and allows members and staff to ask questions in real time. Both advocates and government officials benefit from these meetings.

By summertime, the Appropriation subcommittees have ideally taken member input into consideration and released text of spending bills. This exercise is followed by legislative hearings and mark ups, which is a process where members of the committee discuss and amend the bills in preparation for a vote on the full House or Senate floor. In most cases, each chamber of Congress passes legislation with different funding levels for federal agencies and programs. In this case, the two chambers name a conference committee to find a compromise on the differences between the versions. Once the conference approves a compromise bill, the House and Senate vote on final passage and then the president can sign it into law.

Unfortunately, Congress does not always pass appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. When this happens, Congress typically passes a continuing resolution (CR) to continue funding the government at the previous fiscal year’s spending levels to avoid a government shutdown.

All in all, the annual budget appropriations process is lengthy and rigorous, and doing it well requires a lot of time and dedication from both stakeholders and Congress. However, federal spending is one of the most reliable and impactful exercises of priority setting and it is essential for advocates to engage in that process to ensure that the federal government’s spending priorities reflect opportunities for climate progress and clean energy. A unique, springtime ritual in Washington, engaging in the appropriations process is a must for organizations and individuals who feel strongly about the priorities we set as a country.

The post Spring in Washington: The start of Funding Season appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

The next two years will be crucial in determining whether we can maintain that momentum and realize the promise of recent gains. Climate action, however, continues to face headwinds from the ongoing energy crisis resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, persistent inflation, supply chain disruptions, high commodity prices, and higher interest rates. Meanwhile, continuing partisan political divides provide an added layer of complexity.

Nevertheless, the private sector continues to invest in low-carbon technologies, both to reduce emissions and to capitalize on growing markets for low-carbon goods and services. Companies and the communities they operate in both stand to benefit substantially from these opportunities, but the private sector can move further and faster with targeted policy support. Policymakers will need to prioritize climate and energy policies to realize those benefits and accelerate the transition to a thriving, just, and resilient net-zero emissions economy.

Realizing the full potential of the low-carbon economy will require not only the strategic implementation of the IIJA, CHIPS Act, and IRA, but also new legislative and regulatory actions. Implemented well, these three laws will catalyze much-needed investment in low-carbon technologies, clean-energy infrastructure, and climate resilience. But they alone cannot transform the economy. Hard-to-abate sectors will require further support, including clear market signals to speed the low-carbon transition. Additionally, supply chains will need reimagining; any carbon-pricing and trade policy must align; paths to climate resilience must be defined and cleared; and our workforce will need to evolve to meet the needs of growing sectors.

This brief lays out a set of legislative and executive recommendations that fall into four major priority categories:

1. Investment: Policies to drive private sector investment in clean-energy and low-carbon technologies, as well as approaches to minimize investment risk.
2. Competitiveness: Policies to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industries, particularly manufacturing, by growing domestic markets and supply chains, innovating new and exportable low-carbon technologies, and building on the U.S. carbon advantage.
3. Community: Policies to empower local communities not only to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate, but to also build the necessary capacity to capitalize on emerging economic development opportunities in the low-carbon transition.
4. Whole of economy: Policies to further reduce emission across the entire economy.

These recommendations have been informed through a series of discussions with companies across a wide range of sectors to identify specific legislative and regulatory approaches that can best align climate and economic objectives. What follows is a set of recommendations developed with the benefit of that input, which can help grow the U.S. economy while taking significant steps to further reduce emissions. C2ES is grateful to these companies for their contributions.

A summary factsheet of the policy priorities can be found here.

Reaching for 2030 Release Event
Feb. 28, 2023
Washingtion, D.C.

The post Reaching for 2030: Climate and Energy Policy Priorities appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

C2ES is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy.

The post Comments to the SEC Regarding Proposed Regulation S-X Provisions appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

Join C2ES to hear from leading congressional and business voices about the prospects for action in the 118th Congress and additional steps that must be taken to drive private sector investments, enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industries, empower communities to respond to the impacts of climate change, and further reduce emissions across the entire economy.

The post Reaching for 2030: Climate and Energy Policy Priorities appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

PA also faces numerous barriers, though, including high upfront costs, less applicability to small and diversified farming operations, lack of broadband connectivity, data privacy concerns, difficulty with interoperability between technologies, and producer skepticism. As a result, the promised PA ‘revolution’ may never be fully realized, although expanding PA adoption even absent industry-wide transformation still offers tangible benefits.

To address barriers and maximize PA’s potential, policymakers should take action in the following key areas:

• Research, development, and demonstration: To better characterize PA’s climate benefits in various production systems, research needs to be ramped up to strengthen the climate case for PA investments and identify technologies with the highest potential. PA technologies also need to be developed that can be applied to a diversity of farming systems, beyond large-scale, monocultured row crops. In addition, demonstration efforts will be critical to scaling PA by allowing producers to see its impacts firsthand.
• Enabling support for producers: Multiple PA technologies have high barriers to entry (e.g., broadband requirements, upfront cost), and the abundance of information generated by PA equipment can make it challenging for producers to transform that data into climate-smart decisions. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its partners should address adoption barriers by investing in high-quality broadband and strengthening incentives for PA, while assisting producers to interpret PA data in ways that result in climate benefits.
• Data considerations: USDA, Congress, the private sector, and producers need to coordinate to address data challenges that can both limit PA adoption and dampen the utility of PA data. This includes addressing concerns with data privacy in the industry and enhancing the interoperability of PA equipment.

By taking action in these key areas, policymakers can help precision agriculture technologies play an important role in maintaining the productivity of American agriculture while delivering benefits for producers, improving environmental outcomes, and enhancing the sector’s role in meeting economy-wide net-zero goals.

The post Unlocking Precision Agriculture’s Climate Potential appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

In this webinar, we will explore the current state of the knowledge infrastructure around embodied emissions reporting, the challenges we face in developing a robust system of reporting, and what we can do to get there. It will draw on insights from C2ES’s recent brief, A Building Block for Climate Action: Reporting on Embodied Emissions, and will include an expert panel discussion.

The post What Isn’t Measured, Isn’t Managed: Improving embodied emissions reporting appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

The climate crisis requires countries to cooperate on developing climate solutions, including engineered CDR technologies, that can be deployed at scale around the world. While nature-based CDR approaches are cheaper and more readily available in the short term, engineered CDR technologies can bring many advantages in addressing the climate crisis, including larger removal potentials, more durable carbon sequestration, greater scalability, and more locational flexibility. At the moment, however, these technologies are constrained by cost, energy needs, and potential land and climate impacts. There are also risks that relying too heavily on the eventual availability and scalability of engineered CDR will lead to delays in other mitigation efforts and continuation of business-as-usual practices. Advancing CDR technologies must not be used as an excuse for inaction on other carbon mitigation strategies.

Equally important, climate justice must be embedded in strategies to accelerate development and deployment of engineered CDR technologies. Engineered CDR projects could have impacts on local communities—either directly or by extending the lifetime of polluting industries—highlighting the need for robust stakeholder and community engagement. As CDR deployment progresses, there should also be opportunities for community ownership of CDR benefits, as well as efforts to ensure a just and well-managed transition of skills and expertise into new jobs in the emerging carbon removal sector.

A range of policy interventions could accelerate the equitable deployment of engineered CDR technologies, including the following:

• Infrastructure development: supporting development of regional carbon dioxide transport networks and accelerating commercial carbon dioxide storage projects.
• Regulatory framework: improving the permitting process for Class VI wells (for permanent geologic storage), providing a clear federal regulatory framework for siting of interstate carbon dioxide pipelines, and developing a clear framework for long-term liability related to stored carbon dioxide.
• Market-based mechanisms: using carbon price revenues to support carbon removal projects, making CDR projects eligible for credits in clean energy standards, and requiring federal procurement of carbon removals.
• Financial incentives: promoting the improved 45Q tax credit and expanding the investment tax credit to support deployment of engineered CDR.
• Research, development, and demonstration (RD&D): directing the Department of Energy to clarify its Carbon Negative Shot plans to help CDR technologies scale and expanding RD&D investments in carbon dioxide utilization technologies.
• Equitable transition: establishing requirements for funding applicants to show local economic and social benefits, expanding apprenticeship programs and grants, and modernizing federal environmental justice engagement.

Accelerating the equitable development and deployment of engineered CDR solutions by 2030 creates a greater chance of achieving gigaton-scale removals and ultimately net-zero emissions by 2050.

The post Engineered Carbon Dioxide Removal: Scalability and Durability appeared first on Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.