Ten major companies with operations across the economy — utilities, manufacturing, petroleum, chemicals and financial services — have banded together with leading environmental groups to call for a firm nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years.

Natural Resources Defense CouncilIntroduction of this group, which includes industry giants like General Electric, DuPont and Alcoa, is aimed at adding to the recent impetus for Congressional action on emissions controls and the creation of a market in which allowances to emit carbon dioxide could be traded in a way that achieves the greatest reduction at the lowest cost.

The diversity of the coalition — some members had already come out for other forms of emissions control, like a carbon tax or voluntary controls, but others had been silent on climate-change issues until now — could send a strong signal that businesses want to get ahead of the increasing political momentum for federal emissions controls, in part to ensure that their long-term interests are protected.

Many energy producers and manufacturers have expressed concern that various state efforts, if not coordinated, could lead to a scattershot system of regulation. Others worry that harsher measures, like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, the biggest contributor to global-warming gases, could be imposed if they do not reach a consensus on a legislative approach.

The group’s formal announcement is scheduled for Monday, the day before President Bush is to deliver his State of the Union address and offer the administration’s newest basket of proposals to promote energy security and combat global warming.

Aside from General Electric and Alcoa, Caterpillar is the leading manufacturing company among the group, which also includes four utilities — Duke Energy, based in North Carolina; PG&E of California; the FPL Group of Florida; and PNM Resources of New Mexico. The group counts the multinational oil company BP and Lehman Brothers as members as well.

Jonathan Lash, the president of the World Resources Institute, said Thursday that “this signals that the differences in the interests between these sectors and within these sectors can be resolved.”

Peter A. Darbee, chief executive of PG&E, said, “My hope and expectation is that Congress, the White House and the public will look at these chief executives” and note that companies with a motive to oppose emissions controls are nonetheless saying, “Here’s a serious problem; it needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be dealt with now.”

The negotiations, conducted primarily by the chief executives of the companies, did not produce a model piece of legislation, but rather a detailed set of principles that they suggest as a guide to any legislation. In the Senate, there are already four Democratic proposals for limiting carbon emissions and creating a market-based system, under which the government gives or sells permits to businesses, allowing them a certain level of emissions.

Once established, such a system would allow better-performing companies to sell or trade unneeded credits, and all companies involved would be able to determine whether it would be more efficient for them to clean up their own emissions or buy credits from others.

The group’s principles include recommending a range of emissions levels — from 100 to 105 percent of current levels within five years, then down to 90 to 100 percent of current levels in 10 years, and 70 to 90 percent of current levels in 15 years. In addition, the chief executives agreed after some discussion, to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide.

This comes close to a rejection of almost all new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards, including the 11 plants recently proposed by TXU, a Texas utility. The technology that would isolate carbon dioxide emissions and bury them is still in the earliest phases of development, so this near-repudiation of existing coal technology would have a disproportionate impact on utilities that depend largely on coal, like TXU and the Southern Company.

But Jeff Sterba, the chief executive of PNM Resources, whose company gets about two-thirds of its power from coal and is a member of the coalition, explained why he supports such an approach. “The most important thing for us is to have a viable, diverse portfolio of resources, and coal has got to be part of that mix,” he said. “Today, the biggest problem coal has is uncertainty about carbon.”

The group, called the United States Climate Action Partnership, had its origin in conversations last spring among Mr. Lash; Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense; and Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric. Mr. Lash had worked with Mr. Immelt on the rollout of GE’s Ecomagination program in 2005 — which combined pledges of emissions reductions with a new emphasis on energy-efficient and climate-friendly technologies.

Mr. Sterba and the leaders of the other environmental groups, which also includes Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that an efficient, flexible cap-and-trade system would stimulate the development of new technologies to cut energy use and provide renewable energy.

General Electric claims significant advances in these areas already. According to Peter O’Toole, a company spokesman, “Revenues from the sale of energy-efficient and environmentally advanced products and services hit $10 billion in 2005,” up from $6.2 billion in 2004. The chief executives in the group met for the first time in July. During the meeting, Mr. Krupp said, “it became clear that cap-and-trade is an element of the deal that is good for everybody.”

“It’s good for the environmental community,” he said, “because a hard cap guarantees the integrity of the environment” and “industry likes it because it’s so efficient.” Timing also played a role in the executives’ thinking. As Mr. Darbee said, “We have the opportunity to construct something more pragmatic and realistic while President Bush is in office.” A future political climate, after 2008, he said, might produce “solutions less sensitive to the needs of business.”
(By FELICITY BARRINGER, NYT, 19/01/2007)