Key Issues - The prevailing opinion within the scientific community is that Greenhouse Gases (GHG) accumulate in the atmosphere, trap heat, and cause climate change (formerly “global warming”) lasting decades or longer. The effects include temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, wildfires, ice cover, hurricanes, sea levels, ocean current patterns, etc. Although GHGs like CO₂ have both natural and anthropogenic (man-made) sources, a fundamental premise of proposed GHG regulation is that controlling man-made emissions today will help avoid more costly and reactive steps tomorrow. Most agree that significant GHG reductions can occur through energy efficiency and process changes.

Policies to control GHG emissions have been developing on local, national, and international levels for many years, and these policies could have profound effects on energy production, delivery, cost, and use.

International Programs - The international community has been working towards GHG emission controls for over twenty years, beginning with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/, formed in 1987 by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. Their widely cited “Climate Change 2007 Assessment Report” states that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work in the climate change arena.

In 1994, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) http://unfccc.int/2860.php, proposed an international treaty for reducing global warming and coping with its effects. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol linked the treaty to legally binding goals for reducing emissions through key specific measures including; cap and trade systems, joint implementation, and clean development mechanisms with verification through monitoring.

The Kyoto Protocol recognizes six direct GHGs, each of which varies in its impact on climate change (see table below). The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each GHG is used to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) of the individual gases. (Water vapor is also considered GHG but is not counted in the list).

* HFC & PFCs: multiple compounds, each have a unique GWP

The upcoming UN Climate Change Conference, hosted by Copenhagen in December 2009, is the next step toward developing a major international initiative. Many believe that the UNFCCC/Kyoto momentum is sufficient to carry the day, and that a single treaty or multiple bi-lateral agreements will emerge regardless of U.S. regulatory or legislative actions in 2009. However, President Obama is positioning the U.S. to participate at the Copenhagen conference and commit to goals, pursuing both regulatory and legislative actions in 2009.

U.S. Programs - Previous attempts to either regulate or legislate U.S. GHG emissions were effectively blocked. In July 2008, the EPA published proposed regulations, together with comments from other agencies and stakeholders, to outline the potential negative impacts to the economy. Legal challenges were clarified in 2007 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes regulation of GHG emissions. At that time, both the EPA and Congress chose not to act, waiting until after the 2008 Presidential election.

Rulemaking – In addition to the recently finalized mandatory GHG reporting rule, the EPA published a proposed Finding of Endangerment in April 2009. The finding states that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, clearing the way for GHG regulation under the CAA. A previous EPA finding, subsequently withdrawn, was based only on public welfare endangerment related to CO₂ pollution. The April 2009 finding defines all six GHG gases listed above as air pollution (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/).

Regulating GHG emissions through the CAA might include determining National Ambient Air Quality Standard levels for these pollutants, similar to ozone or particulates. If EPA designates non-attainment areas for GHGs, they might include the entire country. Finally, New Source Performance Standards and control requirements could be imposed on selected sources, and a facility’s Title V air permit modified to limit and control emissions. Mobile sources from transportation would also be affected.

Legislation – Many would prefer new GHG-specific legislation instead of regulation under the CAA, which has a long history of complexity, litigation, and delays. The latest attempt at this legislation is the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) discussion draft released by House Representatives Henry Waxman (D, CA) and Edward Markey (D, MA) on March 31, 2009, which has four main sections: (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560)

• Clean energy - promotes renewable sources of energy and carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low-carbon transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission;

• Energy efficiency - increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry;

• Global warming - places limits on the emissions of heat-trapping pollutants; and

• Transitioning – protections for U.S. consumers and industry that promote green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.

The ambitious ACESA draft calls for a market-based cap and trade program for reducing global warming pollution from electric utilities, oil companies, large industrial sources, and other covered entities that collectively account for 85% of GHG emissions. (http://www.epa.gov/captrade/)

Sources – Emission sources can be direct (for example, burning fuel) or indirect (consuming electricity). Direct emission sources can be from a stationary source (a factory) or mobile source (cars and trucks).

According to the EPA’s April 2009 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007” (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html), the majority of GHG comes from fossil fuel combustion (FFC), which in turn is used for electricity, transportation, industry, and heating, etc. As illustrated in the pie chart below, CO₂ from FFC drives climate change even though other GHGs have higher GWPs.

Regional and State Initiatives – There are three existing multi-state cap-and-trade programs: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (Accord, http://www.midwesternaccord.org/). Together, 23 states are members and full signatories of these GHG reduction accords, and another nine states have joined the agreements as observers. Wisconsin belongs to Accord. Many of these agreements use The Climate Registry – General Reporting Protocol (GRP) to calculate emissions (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/resources/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.php). The EPA supports these efforts, which would likely be folded into a national program.

The Wisconsin Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming – In a final report released in July 2008 (http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/), the task force recommended reducing GHG emissions to 2005 levels by 2014 through better inventory methods, voluntary reductions, utility energy conservation & efficiency (C&E) efforts, renewable energy, nuclear power, and transmission reform. In July, Gov. Doyle announced the creation of the Wisconsin Climate Change Action Initiative, Inc. (WCCAI) to "increase voluntary conservation efforts that will save money and have positive environmental impacts".