Exclusive CI Interview: Dina Kruger, Director of EPA’s Climate Change Division
Dina Kruger is Director of the Climate Change Division at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. Kruger is responsible for a wide range of programs and analyses dealing with climate change policy, economics, mitigation technologies, science and impacts, and communication. She is currently managing the development of an EPA rule-making on the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases. She also manages preparation of the US National Inventory of Greenhouse Gases and Sinks, which is submitted annually to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and has served as an elected member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Task Force Bureau on Greenhouse Gas Inventories since 1998.
Ms. Kruger joined EPA in 1989. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Washington, and received a Master’s degree from the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley.
EPA Prepares for Mandatory Carbon Cuts, Waits for Congress To Take Lead
Carbon Insider: Is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the lead U.S. agency on the issue of regulating carbon reduction?
Dina Kruger: Climate change is a very large issue and involves many agencies across the U.S. government. We at EPA play a large role but also the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Agriculture and others are very heavily involved. We have a lot of expertise in particular areas–in the area of emissions trading, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases, understanding key technologies, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the like. We bring a lot to the table here but there is not a single lead agency across the government on this.
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided that C02 was a pollutant in the context of the Clean Air Act, that does require EPA to assess how one would deal with greenhouse gases in the context of the Clean Air Act and in that area we have been doing some work.
We just released last month an “advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)” which essentially is an opportunity for us to lay out the issues around regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This also provides the public with the opportunity to comment.
(Editor’s Note: According to EPA, The ANPR solicits public input as EPA considers the specific effects of climate change and potential regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In the advance notice, EPA presents and requests comment on the best-available science, requests relevant data, and asks questions about the advantages and disadvantages of using the Clean Air Act to potentially regulate stationary and mobile sources of greenhouse gases.)CI: What is EPA’s position on how best to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.?
DK: We have not developed a position of the best way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. What we are doing is trying to proceed in a very measured way. In this advance notice we laid out the issues surrounding the approach of using the Clean Air Act. So we do not have a preferred approach and we have not made a proposal on how to regulate greenhouse gases. And in fact, a lot of people are looking to Congress for their thoughts on how to do this through legislation.
CI: In the absence of legislation, what can corporations do now to adopt climate change programs?
DK: I think there are a couple of important things that corporations can do now and in fact are doing now. The first is to understand their carbon footprint –where their greenhouse gas emissions are coming from. And the next thing is to look for cost-effective ways to reduce those emissions. There are many resources out there—at EPA we have a lot of resources to help companies with those activities. We have a program called “Climate Leaders”, a corporate leadership program. What a company does when it becomes a climate leader is to agree to quantify its greenhouse gas emissions. EPA will help in that process. The firm sets a corporate reduction target and then prepares to implement a set of activities across a wide range of possibilities, depending on the nature of its businesses, to reduce emissions. It’s been a highly successful program. We have a lot of companies participating.
CI: What kinds of programs does EPA have in place on alternative energy?
DK: We have the Green Power Partnership which is a program that encourages corporations to buy green power—to build that market. On the supply side, we have a program aimed at increasing combined heat and power. In the industrial sector we have a program targeting landfill methane and biogas recovery. We also help companies implement new technologies.
CI: Does EPA favor some sort of cap-and-trade program on carbon reduction similar to Europe’s approach?
DK: Ultimately the decision on what kind of policy to enact is up to Congress. But there is a lot of interest in a cap and trade program because of Europe’s experience and also because of what is happening in a number of states. Moreover, EPA has expertise in the design and running of cap and trade programs.
We get a lot of questions from members of Congress and others about how it could work–what the issues are, what the lessons learned from the European system and we are doing our best to answer them. But again we look to Congress to establish such a program
CI: What types of new technologies hold the most promise for carbon reduction?
DK: .When you look at the scope of the climate challenge and the fact that greenhouse gas emissions come from all sectors of the economy, it is pretty clear that we need a portfolio of technologies to address this. We at EPA don’t do the research. We are more about directing the deployment of technologies and creating the enabling framework or deploying the technologies. I think there are a number of technologies that are available today or are just about ready to go that are pretty interesting. There are a lot of energy efficiency technologies and alternative and renewable energy technologies.
There are some other promising technologies like carbon capturing storage which have gotten a lot of attention. Just last month we released proposed rulemaking for the permitting of commercial scale carbon storage wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We had heard from the industry that they needed to know what the regulatory framework was going to look like, as they are trying to figure out how they will move forward with this technology in the future. This is another opportunity for your readers and others to provide us with comment on the proposal.
CI: What do you see happening in climate regulation over the next year or two? There is a lot of concern on what they timetable might be.
DK: I get this question a lot and I guess I always laugh a little. If I knew the answer to that I could leave the government and make a lot of money on the outside. There are a number of things to consider. EPA will need to consider its response to the Clean Air Act which will be formed by the comments we get from the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
The next Administration will be coming and they are going to be looking across climate policy and providing their own direction and guidance. And so we don’t know who or exactly what that will be but certainly we will be anticipating that we will go through a process of reevaluating to determine how we move forward. And then you have what’s happening in Congress. Activity in Congress is increasing. There is an enormous amount of interest. We are getting calls from staff that had not been previously engaged in these issues. We are anticipating lots of activity up on The Hill.
How that all comes together and over what time frame is really anybody’s guess.
I think this a very complicated issue and a challenging one to deal with. In terms of setting a time a frame? I am really not sure. What we are trying to do at EPA is focus on the things we know how to do here. And that is to provide analysis of policy options, of available technology, of the costs and benefits of action and by providing this information to support and inform decision makers within the administration. Or when members of Congress come to us and request analysis, we do the same for them.
CI: Do you think there is any chance that voluntary programs such as those offered by EPA or the States may be the main instruments for climate reduction over the next couple of years?
DK: Certainly the voluntary programs of EPA and States have been very successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the near term. They will play a very important role over the next few years. And in some cases, they may be the best approach for some sectors. We continue to be very committed to the success of these programs and work to ensure that we get the maximum emissions reductions from these programs.