US oil industry groups last week praised a surprise decision by US President George W. Bush to oppose mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions for power plants.
"We are heartened that he reconsidered the position," Bob Slaughter general counsel of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, told OGJ Online. "It was a plan that could have had adverse impacts on energy supplies and transportation fuels."
Environmental groups argue Bush broke a campaign promise to treat CO2 as a "pollutant" to be regulated like other utility emissions, such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Avoiding regulations on fossil fuels also runs counter to the goals of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a United Nations effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Bush opposes ratifying a Kyoto treaty, as does the US Senate.
Both industry and environmental groups say they were surprised by the decision.
Shifting stance
Earlier this month, environmental groups said they were encouraged by statements from top Bush aides indicating the White House was considering an emissions credit trading system designed to reduce fossil fuel use. Industry sources said they also were anticipating a "flexible" market rule based on statements from US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Todd Whitman.
But emboldened by escalating public worries over energy costs, policy-makers indicated that, in the short term at least, the pro-industry faction of the cabinet has won the argument.
In a letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Bush said he feared that CO2 limits would force utilities to switch from less-expensive coal to natural gas and further drive up electricity prices. Bush also justified his decision by citing "incomplete" scientific knowledge of the role CO2 plays in global climate change. That's a position most, but not all, of the scientific community disagrees with, environmental groups said.
Industry officials such as Slaughter acknowledge there is cause for concern but argue that until the science is completely clear, it does not make sense to risk severe fuel shortages.
"It's the right time to be cautious," he said. "The potential impacts of doing the wrong thing are too severe."
Bush said his decision does not mean he will abandon plans to control sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants.
And industry is prepared to control those pollutants, provided the controls are based on a flexible approach.
"Done the right way, we can further improve air quality and have greater regulatory certainty," said a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. However, regulating CO2 could hamper industry's ability to provide affordable and reliable electricity, EEI said. And industry has already shown it is willing to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases.
"We are not throwing in the towel," EEI said.
Environmental groups and their advocates in Congress aren't willing to take industry's word, however. A bipartisan group of lawmakers headed by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-Vt.) plans to introduce a multi-emission bill this week that would force utilities and refiners to meet a broad range of emission standards for several key "pollutants," including CO2.
