As I read through the new incarnation of the Energy Innovation Act, it seemed that two sources get a pass: agricultural emissions from fossil fuel-based fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, and scope 3 emissions in general. Did I misread the bill?
Thanks @Jeff Green! Copying @Richard Knight and @Dana Nuccitelli to make sure I didn't miss anything but you're correct and this is similar to last session's bill, see our
Energy Innovation Act Q&A including this question:
What are the special provisions for agriculture?
Hi @Jeff Green,
The resources Brett provides are good ones. I'll also try to address some of your questions here.
The bill specifically excludes emissions from on-farm fossil fuel use. This is a very small percentage of US emissions, and even of agricultural emissions.
It also does not cover emissions that are not from fossil fuels such as NOx emissions from fertilizers, methane from cattle, etc. Those emissions would need to be covered by other policies.
But it does fully cover the emissions from any fossil fuels used to create fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The bill would incentivize farmers to source those products from producers that reduce their emissions, or to find alternative practices that reduce the need for such products.
As for the question of scope 3 emissions, they will be covered for all fossil fuel emission. For a business, all of their suppliers are paying a carbon price on all emissions that go into their products. For emitting products, such as oil and gas, the price has to be paid where those products enter the economy, so any consumers will also be paying the carbon price. If implemented properly there should not be any fossil fuel based emissions that are not priced, and so it doesn't really matter if they are scope 1, 2, or 3.
There would still be some scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions not covered, if they are from non-fossil fuel sources (examples: process emissions from cement production or fermentation, NOx, other GHGs, emissions from land use changes, etc.). Again we would need additional policy to cover these emissions.
@Jeff Green, Tony's answer below pretty much nails it. There have been some other carbon pricing bills in past Congresses that also covered non-fossil emissions like CO2 from cement. It will be interesting to see if that happens again as we lobby for more EICDA sponsors.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency