GlobalWarming.org

• In Kansas, the fate of two proposed coal fired power plants is still up in the air as lawmakers in both chambers of the state legislature count votes to determine whether they have a veto-proof margin to override Governor Kathleen Sebelius’s decision to ban coal power.

• Governors from around the country will meet in Connecticut next month to review state programs to combat global climate change and develop a strategy for future action.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson this week told Congress how EPA would respond to the Supreme Court’s decision last April in Massachusetts  v EPA.  The Court over-ruled EPA’s decision that it lacked authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and ordered the agency to consider whether and how carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles should be regulated under the CAA.

In letters to Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Representatives John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.), Johnson explained that EPA would make an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPR), which would open the whole issue to public comment.

Johnson explained that regulating CO2 emissions from autos under the CAA raised so many complex issues within the workings of the Act that careful consideration was necessary.  As Johnson wrote in his letter: “Such an approach makes sense because, as the Act is structured, any regulation of greenhouse gases—even from mobile sources—could automatically result in other regulations applying to stationary sources and extend to small sources, including many not previously regulated under the CAA.”

This is to say that Johnson and EPA have recognized that ruling that CO2 emissions endanger public health and welfare would almost certainly create a regulatory nightmare.  Therefore, they are going to solicit expert opinion. 

Johnson said that the ANPR would be issued this spring.  Then after reviewing the comments received, the EPA Administrator can make a decision.  That decision will almost certainly be made in the next administration.

In his latest column, former CEI Warren Brookes Fellow Tim Carney looks at how rent-seeking opportunities based on  feel-good environmental campaigns, which are currently in vogue among some large corporations, can backfire, hurting shareholders, in this case those of Pepsi.

“Last spring, PepsiCo bought “renewable energy certificates” covering all the energy consumed in its manufacturing, distribution and corporate facilities. In effect, Pepsi is indirectly paying someone, anywhere, to generate electricity from windmills or solar panels.

But Pepsi is not just changing it’s behavior — it’s trying to use government to change everyone else’s too. Last May, PepsiCo joined the United States Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of environmental pressure groups and corporations united to lobby the federal government to impose regulations that curb greenhouse gas emissions in the form of a “cap-and-trade” scheme….

PepsiCo may think it can make a profit from these restrictions: The firm can seek CO2 credits for the renewable energy certificates it has bought; also the company outsources its bottling, including some to other countries that have no greenhouse restrictions. At the same time, new CEO Indra Nooyi is hoping the public image of Pepsi as an environmentally friendly company will generate good will and thus business.

But Pepsi is learning that the environmental game — both on its PR front and its lobbying front — is full of pitfalls. Pepsi has firmly come down in support of the notion that industrial activity contributes to harmful climate change — the very argument that lies behind the current crusade against bottled water products.

Pressure groups have started anti-bottled-water campaigns, and the mayor of San Francisco has prohibited city employees from buying bottled water. The top-selling brand of water in the United States — and thus the chief target — is Pepsi’s Aquafina.

The regulatory front is more treacherous. Any cap-and-trade legislation will be complex and nuanced, with the details determining who gets rich and who suffers, meaning he who has the best lobbying team usually wins.”

Pepsi may have plenty of resources to hire good lobbyists, but so do other large corporate players in the Washington rent-seeking game, so even getting into this game can be said to create unnecessary risks for shareholders.