The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

9,995 Members

Post

The 5 Most Interesting Pieces of Obama's New Climate Change Plan

Obama Climate Change Speech

After promising to make climate change a top priority in his second term, President Obama has finally rolled out his new plan for action. 

With Congress unable to pass anything substantive on climate change — let alone admit that it’s a problem — Obama explained in his recent State of the Union address that he would do as much as possible with his executive authority. After a period of silence on what executive actions the president might take, the White House released an official plan of action this morning. 

Speaking at Georgetown University this afternoon, Obama outlined his executive strategy for reducing carbon pollution, which he hoped would put pressure on lawmakers to adopt a market-based approach.

“I still want to see that happen. I’m willing to work with anyone to make that happen. But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock,” said Obama in his speech.

The “plan” is mostly made up of initiatives already underway within the administration that have been re-packaged for an official roll-out. Much of the document lacks specific targets, and instead relies on a long list of task forces and presidential memorandums directing various agencies to consider climate change. Some pieces that require new spending also depend on budget requests for fiscal year 2014, which are likely not to get fully funded by Congress.

Even the biggest piece of the White House plan — Environmental Protection Agency regulation of carbon emissions from new and existing power plants — has already been in the works for years. And the administration has already missed numerous deadlines for implementing those regulations. According to the White House documents, President Obama has issued a new memo to the EPA officials asking them to speed up the process, which he hopes to complete before ending his second term.

While much of the president’s climate action plan is not exactly new, it does highlight the enormous number of executive actions in the works and ties them together into a coherent package.

“It attempts to systematically mobilize all the tools of the executive branch to rapidly deploy clean energy solutions and more modern and resilient infrastructure,” said Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP). “It advances very concrete, measurable, and immediate steps. It builds on what’s working, and it focuses the nation’s attention on how to move forward together without delay using all the tools at our disposal.”

So what are the most interesting tools the president has created? Most of the attention will be focused on EPA regulation of power-sector CO2 emissions. But there are a handful of new polices in the plan (some built on existing efforts) that could have a big impact. Here are five of them.

1. Doubling renewable energy by 2020

U.S. renewable electricity production doubled during Obama’s first four years in office. The president now says he wants to double renewable electricity again through a suite of new policies.

The first is a goal to issue permits for 10 gigawatts of renewable energy projects on public lands by 2020 through the Interior Department — doubling the number of permits already issued. Along with speeding up permits on public lands, the administration also wants to expedite permitting for incremental hydro projects on existing dams. Finally, the plan calls for 100 megawatts of installed renewable energy capacity on federally-subsidized housing by 2020 and a 20 percent renewable procurement target for federal buildings by that date. Considering that the federal government is the largest property owner in the country, these are all new goals that will add substantial capacity.

“I believe Americans build things better than anyone else. I want to win that race. But we can’t win it if we aren’t in it,” said Obama today.

2. Establishing strong new goals for energy efficiency 

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama announced that he would attempt to double U.S. energy efficiency by 2030. This latest plan of action puts some pieces in place to start accomplishing that goal. 

“Our federal government must lead by example,” said Obama in today’s speech. “Wasting less energy…is where we need to go.”

The first is a new efficiency target for appliance standards and federal buildings. The president wants to tighten standards in both sectors to cut CO2 emissions by 3 billion metric tons by 2030, which translates to about half of yearly energy-sector carbon emissions. The second is a $250 million package through the Department of Agriculture to help rural utilities implement energy efficiency programs. Thirdly, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide another $23 million for affordable housing efficiency programs. The president will also seek to expand the Better Buildings Challenge for multi-family housing, work to increase energy data transparency through the Green Button Initiative and work with agencies to synchronize building codes.

CAP’s Hendricks, who focuses heavily on efficiency deployment through the Clinton Global Initiative, said these pieces added up to a strong piece of the plan.

“In recent years, building energy efficiency has been a quiet success story. This plan builds on many of the tools that have worked,” he said.

3. Launching a climate data initiative

Expanding on previous efforts to bring transparency to energy data, the administration wants to create databases for the latest climate science. Under the president’s recent executive order on open data, the administration will establish an open platform for anyone to access climate science and understand how the government makes decisions on the issue.

In addition, the The Global Change Research Program will create new tools for risk modeling and the National Climate Assessment will include actionable information for local decision makers. Finally, federal agencies will be directed to create climate-resilience tool kits to centralize all the best practices on climate adaptation and mitigation. In combination, these tools could create the most comprehensive, transparent database of climate information ever created.

Obama said today that these databases will be set up to “make sure that cities and state assess risk under different climate scenarios so we don’t waste money on projects that don’t withstand the next storm.”

4. Stopping the public financing of international coal projects

The Export-Import Bank, which the president has authority over, has come under fire from environmental groups for financing coal plants in less-developed countries. The new Obama plan addresses those criticisms by stopping the practice. The administration wants to work with international development organizations like the World Bank to adopt these policies as well.

“Today I’m calling for an end to public financing for new coal plants overseas. And I urge other countries to join this effort,” said Obama in his speech.

The new policy does leave some wiggle room, however. The government will still support projects featuring high-efficiency technologies if “no other economically feasible alternative exists” or that utilize carbon capture technologies. Although this language provides a loophole for the administration, it does represent a new policy that could have major implications for American activities in overseas energy development.

“It puts an end to the false trade-off that energy access and development must be gained at the expense of public health and our climate. Ultimately it is a very big step forward for U.S. leadership in clean energy and for that President Obama should be applauded,” said Justin Guay, head of the Sierra Club’s international program.

As a compliment to this new policy, Obama is also calling for new free-trade negotiations for environmental goods in order to break down trade barriers among countries.

5. Potentially avoiding construction of Keystone XL 

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not an official part of the president’s climate plan. But in his speech today, Obama said he would ask the State Department to reject the pipeline if it resulted in a net increase in CO2 emissions. This is the first time that the president has made any official declaration on the pipeline. 

“I do want to be clear. Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that it’s in our interest. Our national interest will be served only if this project does not exacerbate our carbon pollution. The net effects of climate pollution will be critical in determining if this project goes forward. It’s relevant,” said Obama.

Determining the net impact for emissions from Keystone XL offers more wiggle room for the president, as the State Department previously concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would bring no major climate impacts. Environmental groups have disputed those findings. While up for interpretation, Obama’s words added an interesting twist to the two-year political saga over Keystone XL.

The climate plan announced today is a way for the Obama administration to put pressure on Congress, show Americans what it is already doing and prove to the international community that the U.S. is moving forward.

“This should send a strong message to the world that America intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution,” said Obama.

Although the plan featured a lot of old programs in a new package, supporters of the president backed him up on the substance of the plan.

“Each of these actions is a win. But together they become something more — elevating the individual policy measures that have characterized this administration’s approach to clean energy into a single overarching framework to help guide the federal government in making progress on climate and energy,” said Bracken Hendricks.

Photo Credit: Obama Speech/shutterstock

greentech mediaGreentech Media (GTM) produces industry-leading news, research, and conferences in the business-to-business greentech market. Our coverage areas include solar, smart grid, energy efficiency, wind, and other non-incumbent energy markets. For more information, visit: greentechmedia.com , follow us on twitter: @greentechmedia, or like us on Facebook: facebook.com/greentechmedia.

Stephen Lacey's picture

Thank Stephen for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Ivor O'Connor's picture
Ivor O'Connor on June 26, 2013

“Today I’m calling for an end to public financing for new coal plants overseas. And I urge other countries to join this effort,” said Obama in his speech.

 

Grrrr. He should have included gas and nuclear too.

George Stevens's picture
George Stevens on June 28, 2013

Should have included nuclear? A safe and carbon free energy generation source?

Ivor, this is a forum for constructive conversation, please take your unwarranted bias elsewhere.

BTW, you do understand that Obama is a proponent of nuclear technology and has twice now appointed a DOE Energy Secretary that is also strong nuclear proponents, right?

How about Elon Musk, founder of Solar City and Tesla, who has been quoted on several occassions opining that the US should build more nuclear power plants?

 

Ivor O'Connor's picture
Ivor O'Connor on June 28, 2013

You say nuclear is safe and carbon free. Sure it is carbon free but it is not safe and it is not cheap. That is why no insurance companies and no private industries will touch it. Obama had to interfere with loan gurantees, subsidies, and promises that the government will step in and shield them from lawsuits when things go bad in the future.

The next election Obama will no longer be here and it is very unlikely he will be replaced with somebody who is so eager to give money away on boondoggles.

 

You say Elon Musk opines for more nuclear power? Please give references before you say crazy stuff. I’ve watched him say we may, if we don’t get it together, have to use nuclear. Kind of like saying we may have to cut off our foot if we are reckless and get frostbite. His favorite superlative is to say that we’d get far more power by covering the land currently used by the nuclear industry with solar panels. Actually he didn’t say nuclear industry. He said the plants and area surrounding them for “protection”. It is highly unlikely we have to worry about destroying our future though once we get another president in office.

 

If you want to pollute this forum you should do it with facts.

George Stevens's picture
George Stevens on June 28, 2013

What you said above is false, Elon Musk is both pro-solar and pro-nuclear:

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1292.html

WATTENBERG: Do you think we ought to be doing more to encourage the use of nuclear power in the United States. My understanding is that we have not built a new nuclear plant in about 25 years here.
MUSK: Right. It’s true we’ve not built new nuclear plants in a couple decades. Although what most people don’t realize is that the existing nuclear plants have been massively upgraded. [Laughter]
So, our percentage of nuclear power has actually not declined as much — [speaking over each other]
WATTENBERG: About 20 percent total.
MUSK: Yeah, we should build more nuclear power plants. I think that’s a better way to generate energy than certainly a coal power plant or a natural gas power plant.


Obama being replaced by an anti-nuclear energy president? I wouldn’t count on it, the last president we had that didn’t consider nuclear for his energy agenda was Richard Nixon.


Nuclear is actually safer than solar PV in fatalaties/kWh produced:

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3554-evaluating-energy-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-p...


Expensive? Depends on where you’re building the plant. China is building reactors for an overnight cost approaching $2/installed watt right now, which is competitive with variable wind costs in China without consideration for land and transmission. In the US (the most expensive place to deploy nuclear) nuke plants still beat PV in most parts of the country, and once again nuclear is a baseload rather than variable supply source.


Let’s have constructive discussion rather than asserting false information out of personal bias.

 

Ivor O'Connor's picture
Ivor O'Connor on June 28, 2013

It’s not personal to represent facts that are contrary to yours. In fact it is insulting and personal for you to view anything other than your opinions as personal.

I’ll find Elon’s quotes stating what I said and then continue. You did good work finding that by the way. Now it is my turn to find the contrary.

Ivor O'Connor's picture
Ivor O'Connor on June 28, 2013

 

George Stevens,

Here is the latest Elon says: “There’s truly an astounding amount of energy that comes at us from the sun. It’s interesting – if you took the land area used by nuclear plants, including the stay-out zones and everything, and said, okay, what generates more power, the nuclear power plant or just covering it with solar panels? In most cases, it’s solar panels. Just the area used by the nuclear power plant, in solar panels would generate more energy because you actually have to have a big stay-out zone, you can’t just put a nuclear power plant in the outer suburbs, with a bunch of people around it, so you have to have this big clear zone and so, they use a lot of area. But just to give you a sense of how much power can come from the sun, this is literally true, what I’ve just said.”

Given at the Royal Academy of Energy and Transport at the end of 2012. You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1HZIQliuoA

Solar is cheaper than nuclear power. CSP, solar thermal, is cheaper too and able to supply 24×7 baseline power. Furthermore we don’t have to worry about where we are going to have to store the waste for the next million years. Seriously. A MILLION years. See http://www.dw.de/what-to-do-with-nuclear-waste/a-16755844

Nuclear is safer than solar? Yeah right. I’d rather fall off a roof installing a solar panel or be killed with a falling solar panel than die a horrible death by cancer. Like the million or so that died from Chernobyl. And the countless future generations over the next million years because we have no safe places to store the waste. I’m up for ignoring the actual counts because the numbers can’t be agreed upon. Instead concentrate on which is the more economical solution. And on what Elon Musk said.

Hopefully you have something constructive to add?

 

Joey Ortiz's picture
Joey Ortiz on June 29, 2013

The part where you said solar is cheaper than nuclear, the part where you said we “have” to store it, the part where you said a “million years”, the part where you said solar was safer than nuclear, the part where you said a million died from chernobyl, the part where you implied solar was more economical than nuclear, the part where you claimed there are renewable technologies that can economically supply baseload power, are all in direct contradiction with vast bodies of data, physics, and economics.

Your opinion should yield to measurement, physics, and probablity, rather than the other way around, if you expect your predictions to have any hope in succeeding. This is the art of removing bias. It is the art of being logical, scientific, and bowing to nature as she is, rather than construing her as you see fit.

Ivor O'Connor's picture
Ivor O'Connor on June 29, 2013

Joey Ortiz says: “The part where you said solar is cheaper than nuclear, the part where you said we “have” to store it, the part where you said a “million years”, the part where you said solar was safer than nuclear, the part where you said a million died from chernobyl, the part where you implied solar was more economical than nuclear, the part where you claimed there are renewable technologies that can economically supply baseload power, are all in direct contradiction with vast bodies of data, physics, and economics.

Your opinion should yield to measurement, physics, and probablity, rather than the other way around, if you expect your predictions to have any hope in succeeding. This is the art of removing bias. It is the art of being logical, scientific, and bowing to nature as she is, rather than construing her as you see fit.”

I quoted you so that you so you can’t erase it. Please come back to this as the years progress and you learn just how wrong you were at one point.

George Stevens's picture
George Stevens on July 1, 2013

Ivor, right now there are Two 1000 MW nuclear reactors being installed in Georgia. When all is said and done the price for electricity produced by these plants is likely to be in the range of 12-13c/kWh for 60 straight years.

Please let me know what the per kWh price would be from a 2 GW baseload solar PV plant that is operational for 60 years in Georgia. Hint: the answer is more than 12-13c/kWh.

Solar is great, and I hope we continue to install more of it, but nuclear is a necessary complement at this point. And what is further, it is quite safe per kWh of energy produced even in spite of the tragedy at Chernobyl.

George Stevens's picture
George Stevens on July 1, 2013

Elon Musk is simply putting the energy density of solar into perspective, he still supports nuclear energy. It would make much more sense to have PV installed next to the reactor on the “stay-out-zones” than to completely replace the reactor with PV. The difference between baseload and variable energy is quite important and can’t be discounted. 

Do you have any idea how much waste is actually created by a nuclear plant? The volume isn’t so great, and neither is the threat of storing it.

Joey Ortiz's picture
Joey Ortiz on July 1, 2013

The current economics of both power sources are quite well-measured. While the future economics has not happened yet, today the statements you made comparing solar and nuclear are currently invalid. This should raise a rather large flag about your bias.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »