- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
116th Congress } { Rept. 116-41
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { Part 2
======================================================================
CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT
_______
April 18, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pallone, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 9]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 9) to direct the President to develop a plan for
the United States to meet its nationally determined
contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Hearings............................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 6
Oversight Findings............................................... 13
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 13
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 13
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 14
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 14
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 15
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 15
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits....... 15
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 15
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 15
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 15
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 16
Dissenting Views................................................. 17
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 9, the ``Climate Action Now Act'', was introduced on
March 27, 2019, by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), and referred to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Energy
and Commerce. H.R. 9, the ``Climate Action Now Act'', directs
the President to develop a plan for the United States to meet
its nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris
Agreement, and it bars the President from using appropriated
funds to take any action to advance the withdrawal of the
United States from the Paris Agreement.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The United States ratified the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with the advice and
consent of the Senate, in October 1992.\1\ It was the first
international treaty to acknowledge ``that change in the
Earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of
humankind.'' It also expressed concern ``that human activities
have been substantially increasing the atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases
enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will
result on average in an additional warming of the Earth's
surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural
ecosystems and humankind.''\2\ According to the UNFCCC, ``[t]he
ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal
instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to
achieve . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Senate Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, U.S. Treaty No. 102-38 (Oct. 7, 1992)
(www.congress.gov/treaty-document/102nd-congress/38).
\2\United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (1992).
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 12, 2015, in Paris, France, Parties to the
UNFCCC reached an agreement designed to combat climate change
by accelerating and intensifying the actions needed to
strengthen the global response.\4\ The Agreement was adopted
under and intended to enhance the implementation of the UNFCCC.
A key goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global average
temperature rise to well below two degrees Celsius (+C) above
pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the increase
to 1.5 +C. On September 3, 2016, the United States accepted the
Paris Agreement, which ultimately entered into force on
November 4, 2016.\5\ To date, nearly 200 countries have joined
the Paris Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Paris
Agreement (2015).
\5\United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris
Agreement--Status of Ratification (unfccc.int/process/the-paris-
agreement/status-of-ratification) (accessed Apr. 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Paris Agreement established a framework in which all
parties submit NDCs based on their individual domestic
circumstances and priorities.\6\ The Agreement does not impose
specific emission reduction procedures or methods. The United
States submitted its initial NDC on March 31, 2015, pledging to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels
by 2025.\7\ This target reflects ``opportunities under existing
regulatory authorities to reduce emissions in 2025 of all
greenhouse gases from all sources in every economic
sector.''\8\ Specific measures included in the U.S. NDC are:
strengthening fuel economy standards for light-duty and heavy-
duty vehicles;\9\ determinations to establish improved energy
efficiency codes for commercial and residential buildings;\10\
strengthening energy efficiency standards for appliances and
equipment;\11\ approving alternatives to and reducing the use
of hydrofluorocarbons;\12\ establishing carbon pollution
standards from new and existing power plants;\13\ and
establishing standards to reduce methane emissions from
landfills\14\ and oil and gas operations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See note 4.
\7\United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United
States of America First Nationally Determined Contribution (Mar. 9,
2016) (www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
United%20States%20of%20America%20First/
U.S.A.%20First%20NDC%20Submission.pdf).
\8\Id.
\9\Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
77 Fed. Reg. 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012); Environmental Protection Agency and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016).
\10\Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486; Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140; See, e.g.,
Department of Energy, Final Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency
Improvements in ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016: Energy Standard for
Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 83 Fed. Reg. 8463
(Feb. 27, 2018).
\11\Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486; Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140; See, e.g.,
Michael B. Gerrard and John C. Dernbach, Legal Pathways to Deep
Decarbonization in the United States: Summary and Key Recommendations,
Chapter 9 (2018).
\12\See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Rule 20, 80 Fed. Reg. 42870 (Jul. 20, 2015);
Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Rule 21, 81 Fed. Reg. 86778 (Dec. 1, 2016); Environmental Protection
Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 31 for
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 81 Fed. Reg. 32241 (May
23, 2016).
\13\Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015); Environmental Protection
Agency, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64510 (Oct. 23, 2015).
\14\Environmental Protection Agency, Standards of Performance for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 81 Fed. Reg. 59332 (Aug. 29, 2016);
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Guidelines and Compliance
Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 81 Fed. Reg. 59276 (Aug. 29,
2016).
\15\Environmental Protection Agency, Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources, 81
Fed. Reg. 35824 (Jun. 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal authorities for actions included in the U.S. NDC
are derived from existing domestic laws, most of which are
products of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that received
broad bipartisan support from Congress.\16\ These existing
laws, regulations, and other domestic mandatory measures
relevant to the achievement of the U.S. NDC target are subject
to various transparency and public participation requirements,
and also are subject to judicial review.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.; Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94-163 (1975); Energy Conservation and Production Act,
Public Law 94-385 (1976); National Climate Program Act, Public Law 95-
367 (1978); National Energy Policy Conservation Act, Public Law 95-619
(1978); Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204;
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act
of 1989, Public Law 101-218; Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-
486; Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58; Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140.
\17\Administrative Procedures Act, Public Law 79-404 (1946);
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511; Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354 (1980); Congressional Review Act,
Public Law 104-121 (1996); Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Public Law
104-4; Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993); Exec.
Order No. 13563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011); Exec. Order No.
13132, 64 Fed. Reg. 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999); Exec. Order No. 13175, 65
Fed. Reg. 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000); Exec. Order No. 13771, 82 Fed. Reg.
9339 (Jan. 30, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his intention to
withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.\18\ Under
the terms of the Agreement, the United States cannot give
formal notice of withdrawal until November 4, 2019, with the
withdrawal taking effect one year later. Since that
announcement, the Trump Administration has withdrawn, revised,
or slowed most of the emission-reducing actions included in the
U.S. NDC and initiated by the Obama Administration. In
virtually every case, the Administration's actions would put
the United States on a path to further exacerbate climate
change by increasing greenhouse gas and other pollution, while
undermining the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and
increasing consumer energy costs.\19\ Testimony at the February
28, 2019, hearing indicated that the ``current rollback of
mitigation policies by the United States''\20\ is contributing
to the possibility of an average global temperature increase of
approximately 3 +C by the end of the century, even with the
ambitious global actions pledged under the Paris Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\The White House, Statement by President Trump on the Paris
Climate Accord (Jun. 1, 2017).
\19\See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Review of the Clean Power Plan: Proposal (October
2017); Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Proposed Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission
Guideline Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review
Program (Aug. 2018); Environmental Protection Agency and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for
Model Year2021--2026Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Oct. 2018).
\20\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on ``We'll
Always Have Paris: Filling the Leadership Void Caused by Federal
Inaction on Climate Change'' (Testimony of Andrew Light, World
Resources Institute), 116th Cong. (Feb. 28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, new scientific analyses indicate that the
window for meaningful climate action is shrinking faster than
previously expected, and the effects will be far greater and
felt more intensely by every part of the country. On November
23, 2018, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released its
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA) describing the impacts
of climate change on the United States.\21\ The NCA warned
that, in the absence of climate action, average global
temperatures could rise by at least 3 +C by 2100. The report
also projected that inaction will lead to significant economic
and other damages in the coming decades. The NCA was released
shortly after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) released its special report warning that without more
aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the world
would likely exceed the 1.5 +C threshold, committing us to ever
more serious effects of global warming.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate
Assessment (Nov. 2018).
\22\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special
Report on Global Warming of 1.5+C (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, H.R. 9 would take an important step to ensure
the United States is on track to make the emissions reductions
needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. The purpose of
H.R. 9 is to ensure the United States does not withdraw from
the Paris Agreement and honors its NDC. It directs the
President to develop a plan to achieve the greenhouse gas
pollution reductions in our NDC and provide the plan to the
public and to Congress. Consistent with the Paris Agreement,
H.R. 9 is technology neutral, and does not mandate or prohibit
the use of any specific technology for achieving the necessary
emissions reductions. Further, H.R. 9 does not tie the
President to the specific components of the U.S. NDC prepared
by the previous Administration; rather, section 4 gives the
President the opportunity to develop his own plan to meet
emission reduction targets. The goal of the plan provided for
in section 4 is consistent with the goals of long-standing U.S.
policy\23\ and existing domestic laws governing energy
conservation, public health, and environmental protection. It
is also consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\See, e.g., Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, Public Law
100-204; Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--
(1) the following hearing was used to develop or consider
H.R. 9:
The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a
hearing on February 28, 2019, entitled ``We'll Always Have
Paris: Filling the Leadership Void Caused by Federal Inaction
on Climate Change.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
Andrew Light, Distinguished Senior Fellow,
World Resources Institute;
Carla Frisch, Principal, Rocky Mountain
Institute;
Nathan Hultman, Director, Center for Global
Sustainability, Associate Professor, University of
Maryland School of Public Policy;
Samuel Thernstrom, Chief Executive Officer,
Energy Innovation Reform Project (2) the following
related hearing was held:
The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a
hearing on April 2, 2019, entitled ``Lessons from Across the
Nation: State and Local Action to Combat Climate Change.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from:
The Honorable Jay Inslee, Governor of the
State of Washington;
The Honorable Jacqueline Biskupski, Mayor of
the City of Salt Lake City, Utah;
The Honorable James Brainard, Mayor of the
City of Carmel, Indiana;
The Honorable Daniel C. Camp III, Chairman
of the Beaver County Board of Commissioners, Beaver
County, Pennsylvania;
The Honorable Jerry F. Morales, Mayor of the
City of Midland, Texas.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
H.R. 9, the ``Climate Action Now Act'', was introduced in
the House of Representatives on March 27, 2019, by Rep. Kathy
Castor (D-FL), and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The full Committee on
Energy and Commerce met in open markup session, pursuant to
notice, on April 4, 2019, to consider H.R. 9. At the conclusion
of consideration and markup of the bill, the Committee agreed
to a motion by Mr. Pallone, Chairman of the Committee, to order
H.R. 9 favorably reported to the House, without amendment.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list each record vote
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The
Committee advises that there were six record votes taken on
H.R. 9, including a motion by Mr. Pallone ordering H.R. 9
favorably reported to the House, without amendment. The motion
on final passage of the bill was approved by a record vote of
29 yeas to 19 nays. The following are the record votes taken
during Committee consideration, including the names of those
members voting for and against:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the descriptive portion of the report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the
estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax
expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 15, 2019.
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 9, the Climate
Action Now Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Stephen
Rabent and Sunita D'Monte.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 9 would prohibit funds from being authorized to be
appropriated, obligated, or expended to take actions to
withdraw the United States from the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change's 21st Conference of Parties in
Paris, France (known as the Paris Agreement). CBO estimates
that the prohibition would have no significant effect on the
federal budget because the costs to implement the withdrawal
under the Paris Agreement would be negligible.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw
from the Paris Agreement in June 2017. However, under the Agreement the
earliest the United States can give official written notice of its
intent to withdraw is November 2019 and the earliest that withdrawal
may take effect is one year after that notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 9 also would require the President to develop a public
plan for the United States to meet certain targets for
greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to under the Paris Agreement
and how the United States will confirm other parties to the
Paris Agreement are fulfilling their targets. That plan would
be updated annually. H.R. 9 does not require the United States
to implement the plan nor prescribe the scope or level of
detail required in the plan.
The costs to implement those provisions of H.R. 9 could
vary significantly depending on the level of effort federal
agencies would devote to prepare the required plan. Agencies
could adapt previously developed plans to fulfill the bill's
requirements, such as those previously produced by the
Department of State or Environmental Protection Agency in
recent years. On the other hand, agencies may produce new plans
that provide specific actions, policy recommendations, and
regulatory and legislative proposals that also would fulfill
the bill's requirements. Based on information from the
Administration, CBO estimates that agencies would expend
minimal efforts to prepare the required plan at a cost of $1
million over the 2019-2024 period; such spending would be
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
On April 15, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 9,
the Climate Action Now Act, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 4, 2019. The two
bills are similar and CBO's estimates of the budgetary effects
are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate is Stephen Rabent
and Sunita D'Monte. The estimate was reviewed by Theresa Gullo,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to ensure
the United States continues to participate in the global effort
to respond to the threat of climate change by remaining a party
to the Paris Agreement and fulfilling its commitment to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the United States through
implementation of its domestic laws.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
H.R. 9 is known to be duplicative of another Federal program,
including any program that was included in a report to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the most recent
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS
Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
Committee finds that H.R. 9 contains no earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 designates that the short title may be cited as
the ``Climate Action Now Act''.
Sec. 2. Findings
Section 2 lists eight findings of Congress about the Paris
Agreement.
Sec. 3. Prohibition on use of funds to advance the withdrawal of the
United States from the Paris Agreement
Section 3 prevents the expenditure of any funds to advance
the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement.
Sec. 4. Plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined
contribution under the Paris Agreement.
Paragraph (a) of this section requires the President to
develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally
determined contribution under the Paris Agreement and to submit
the plan to Congress and make the plan available to the public
within 120 days of the bill's enactment. The plan is to
describe how the United States will meet an economy-wide target
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below
its 2005 level by 2025, and how the United States will use the
Paris Agreement's transparency provisions to ensure other
parties to the Agreement are fulfilling their announced
contributions to the Agreement.
Paragraph (b) of this section requires the President to
update the plan within one year of the bill's enactment and
annually thereafter.
Paragraph (c) defines the Congressional Committees
designated to receive the plan as the Committees on Foreign
Affairs and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives
and the Committees on Foreign Relations, Environment and Public
Works, and Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
Sec. 5. Paris Agreement defined
This section defines the Paris Agreement as the decision by
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's
21st Conference of the Parties in Paris, France, adopted on
December 12, 2015.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
There are no changes to existing law made by the bill H.R.
9.
DISSENTING VIEWS
There are many bi-partisan policies Congress may pursue, as
it has been pursuing in recent years, to address meaningfully
climate risks, help communities adapt to future risks, and
accelerate the innovation, technological advancement, and
American competitiveness necessary for a secure, safe, and
prosperous society.
Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is not one of those policies. H.R. 9
is an entirely partisan bill. And it is a defective bill.
H.R. 9 was introduced by Representative Castor on
Wednesday, March 27, and put on the full Committee markup
calendar three business days later, on April 1--without
Subcommittee legislative hearing or markup. The Majority then
moved H.R. 9 though the full Committee markup on April 4 and
reported the bill without amendment. At this point, we
understand it is being reported to the House without the
benefit of any legislative hearing or amendment in a Committee
of jurisdiction.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The House Foreign Affairs Committee conducted a markup and
reported H.R. 9 without amendment on April 9, 2019 at https://
foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/2/e/2eb12762-5b1f-49eb-a4be-
f34c27fce384/D863FCF8A2343318BC43AC794ED36363.04.09.2019-hfac-markup-
summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Majority knows well, when considering policies that
could have profound impact on millions of constituents--and
indeed the economic and security interests of the United
States--regular order is essential. It is necessary to
understand and address defects and develop bi-partisan
consensus on effective legislative measures. When
bipartisanship cannot be achieved, regular order allows all
voices to be heard throughout the process and provides for
fuller information and cross-examination of ideas and
proposals. H.R. 9 was not considered under regular order.
H.R. 9 withholds funds from the President to prevent taking
any steps to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a withdrawal
that would be done under terms negotiated and supported by the
previous Administration.\2\ It also requires the President to
develop a plan to implement the previous Administration's so-
called ``commitments'' for economy-wide emissions reductions,
the consequences of which received no scrutiny by the Majority
(or the Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Article 28 of the Paris Agreement at https://unfccc.int/
sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 9 represents the Majority's reflexive response to
President Trump's June 1, 2017 announcement that the United
States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement and begin
negotiations either to reenter or negotiate an entirely new
arrangement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-
trump-paris-climate-accord/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In announcing the intention to withdraw, the President
cited serious harms to U.S. international competitiveness,
workers, consumers, and taxpayers from compliance with the
terms of the Agreement and concluded that: ``The Paris Accord
would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our
sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at
permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the
world.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's own oversight and legislative record in the
previous four Congresses produced ample evidence to confirm the
potential harms from the Paris Agreement and related U.S.
commitments. In the runup to the Paris negotiations, the
Committee examined closely the Obama Administration's
greenhouse gas emissions control initiatives, enshrined in its
Climate Action Plan,\5\ and especially the imposition of its
Clean Power Plan and related electric sector regulations, which
had been a central feature in support of U.S. pledges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See The President's Climate Action Plan, Executive Office of the
President, June 2013. The plan entailed a suite of actions, including
electric sector emissions reductions, oil and gas sector methane
emissions reductions, auto fuel economy standards, energy efficiency
initiatives.
\6\See references to the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. Intended
Nationally Determined Contribution and the 2016 Second Biennial Report
of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence collected through numerous Committee oversight
and legislative hearings showed how these electric sector
regulations, premised on an obscure and misinterpreted
provision in the Clean Air Act, would have produced a radical
and expensive transformation in the supply and delivery of
electric power; threatened to drive out of the U.S. markets
major sources of affordable energy, undermined reliability and
security, and increased consumer utility bills.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See, for example, https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/
news/fact-sheet/hr-2042-ratepayer-protection-act-0/. The regulations
prompted State governors, regulators, and other stakeholders to
challenge the legality of the regulations, which the current
Administration is now seeking to replace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority could have done the public a service to review
this record and explore what meeting the U.S. commitments would
truly entail. Instead, Members and the public were deprived of
a close examination of the costs and feasibility of all the
air, transport, industrial, and agricultural regulations
necessary to meet the timelines proposed in the U.S.
commitments--timelines that aim for ``deep decarbonization'' by
2050.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See U.S. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, which
states: ``This [2025] target is consistent with a straight line
emission reduction pathway from 2020 to deep, economy-wide reductions
of 80% or more by 2050.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee would have benefited from a close look at why
the Obama Administration did not provide the public a complete
plan to meet the 2025 commitments. What it managed to implement
fell short in emissions targets by upwards of 40 percent using
the most optimistic assumptions.\9\ Such an examination would
have revealed the costs of trying to regulate through emissions
caps when there are not yet technologies available to meet the
reductions affordably and reliably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The Obama Administration reported its implemented and proposed
policies, would, under the most optimistic assumptions about natural
emissions sinks, reach about 60% of the emissions reductions to meet
Paris commitments, according to 2016 Second Biennial Report of the
United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compounding H.R. 9 defects is the unquestioning focus on
U.S. domestic action, while all evidence indicates the bulk of
future global emissions growth will be in China, India, and the
rest of the developing world. Recent projections by the
International Energy Agency show that fossil energy, even with
all existing and announced policies implemented, will remain
the dominant form of energy in our global systems through 2040,
and likely beyond.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\See World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency at
https://www.iea.org/weo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must recognize that this is a global issue that requires
global solutions. And there are some hard realities that make
global emissions reductions challenging. In 1990, energy-
related carbon dioxide emissions were 20.5 gigatons. By 2018,
energy-related CO2 emissions had increased to 33.2 gigatons, or
by 62 percent, according to the most recent report form the
International Energy Agency.\11\ This growth has occurred
despite nearly 30 years of international climate agreements.
And it will continue as nations seek the tremendous benefits of
energy and power in their societies and as developing nations
especially acquire the steel, cement, and other infrastructure
needed for building and expanding the world's cities; the
world's building stock alone is expected to double by 2060, the
equivalent of building an entire New York City every single
month for forty years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See Global Energy & CO2 Status Report, International Energy
Agency, March 2019, at https://www.iea.org/geco/emissions/.
\12\See Our 2019 Annual Letter, Bill and Melinda Gates, noting ``As
the urban population continues to grow in coming decades, the world's
building stock is expected to double by 2060--the equivalent of adding
another New York City monthly between now and then. That's a lot of
cement and steel. We need to find a way to make it all without
worsening climate change.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider just energy related emissions: between 2017 to
2018 alone, global emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 560
million metric tons--a half gigaton. China's emissions
increased by 230 million metric tons, or a little more than 40
percent of the worldwide increase. Meanwhile, as U.S. energy
emissions also tracked up, the IEA notes: ``Despite this
increase, emissions in the United States remain around their
1990 levels [which is] 14 [percent] and 800 million tons of CO2
below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline
among all countries since 2000.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Op. Cit., Global Energy & CO2 Status Report,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the previous Administration committed the U.S. to
expensive domestic action to increase its rate of emissions
cuts, the Paris Agreement allows global growth in emissions to
continue at a rapid pace in developing nations and especially
among the United States' chief competitors and adversaries.
As we learned from information submitted at one hearing,
Russia, the world's number five greenhouse gas emitter, right
after the European Union, pledged it would reduce missions by
up to 30 percent below its 1990 baseline. But Russia's
emissions were already 50 percent below the 1990 baseline,
which was set as the Soviet Union collapsed. This gives Russia
room to increase its emissions substantially--giving Russian
industry a competitive advantage.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See February 27, 2019 Letter to Committee from Steve Eule, Vice
President for Climate & Technology, Global Energy Institute, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
Hearing ``We'll Always Have Paris: Filling the Leadership Void Caused
by Federal Inaction on Climate Change,'' February 28, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
India, the world's number three emitter, committed to
reducing its carbon dioxide emissions intensity (emissions per
unit of GDP) by 33 percent to 35 percent by the 2030s, a goal
which would still allow emissions growth of 65 percent by 2030,
driven in part by the announced doubling of domestic coal
output shortly after the Paris agreement. Moreover, the
commitment is conditional on financial assistance and
technology transfer from developed nations estimated at upwards
of $2.5 trillion.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China, the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, pledged to
peak its carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and make its best
efforts to peak early. It pledged to reduce its carbon dioxide
emissions intensity by 60 percent to 65 percent. Yet data from
the previous 25 years show China has already been reducing
intensity at about this rate, so the commitments mean business
as usual.\16\ Whatever the progress, the essential deal placed
the United States at a substantial strategic disadvantage as
China pursues unbridled efforts to expand manufacturing and
exports around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority's focus on the Obama Administration's economy-
wide emissions commitments is not a realistic solution to
global emissions growth. Enforcing the commitments through
regulations here at home, however, could create realistic
hardship on our electricity, transportation, and industrial
sectors in communities around the nation. H.R. 9, in short, is
a solution that threatens the nation's pursuit of its other
security and economic priorities, without addressing the
underlying global emissions challenge.
The challenge is to focus on what is necessary for future
energy systems, transportation systems, manufacturing, and
industry to emit fewer greenhouse gases. This is a
technological challenge. And without the technological fixes,
international agreements will not work.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\See, for example, testimony of Sam Thernstrom, Energy
Innovation Reform Project, before the Subcommittee on Environment and
Climate Change Hearing, ``We'll Always Have Paris. Filling the
Leadership Void Caused by Federal Inaction on Climate Change,''
February 28, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had the Majority investigated the details of U.S.
commitments, the potential impacts of policies to meet those
commitments, and the relative quality of other nation's
promises, we suspect their unquestioning support for H.R. 9
would wither away.
Had the Majority reviewed the reasons why the Obama
Administration could not reach bipartisan consensus on its
greenhouse gas policies and could not create a durable
agreement through the advice and consent of the Senate, we
suspect it would have devised a more thoughtful path to U.S.
climate change policy.
But as reflected in H.R. 9, the Majority choose its well-
worn path. Indeed, the Majority rejected every Minority
amendment offered at markup, including amendments that sought
to protect consumers from energy-price impacts, that sought to
ensure that any planning include essential clean technologies
like nuclear and hydropower, that sought to ensure the
continued global emissions benefits of the nation's natural gas
exports, and that sought to ensure that the United States not
bind itself to commitments that put it at a strategic
disadvantage to China or Russia, which have gamely avoided
economically harmful climate policies. As it is, we cannot
support favorably reporting this bill to the House floor.
Rather than pursue this plainly defective and partisan
bill, the Committee should have continued examining bi-partisan
policies focused on the innovation and the adaptive capacity of
the nation and its communities, recognized the scale of the
global technological challenge, the benefits of modern energy
and industrial systems, and sought out the ingredients to
technological advances and continued U.S. competitiveness and
security.
Greg Walden,
Republican Leader.
John Shimkus,
Republican Leader,
Subcommittee on
Environment and Climate
Change.
[all]
