THE CLIMATE BILL NEEDS TO PAY FOR ITSELF

The Energy Only Bill Mirage; Why an Energy Bill Could Fail Without Pollution Reduction Measures or Revenue
Daniel J. Weiss, June 25, 2010 (Center for American Progress)

"The time for Senate action on clean energy legislation is rapidly leaking away, yet some senators continue to advocate passage of an “energy-only” bill that ignores comprehensive reductions in global warming pollution. And most of the proposed energy-only bills would not pay for the clean energy or nuclear power subsidies sought by many proponents of this narrow approach…

"Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) supports an energy-only bill…His alternative to a comprehensive attack on climate change pollution is his Practical Energy and Climate Act, S. 3464, which would reduce oil use via additional fuel economy standard improvements and building efficiency retrofit programs…[and] also weaken existing protections…Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is another proponent of the “energy-only” approach. He believes that there is not enough support for action on global warming in the Senate, so he is advocating for a vote this July on the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, S. 1462,..[that] includes $5 billion for assistance to the nuclear industry and $10 billion in funding for the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or Green Bank. But these and its other programs are not funded…[and] would add $13.5 billion to the federal deficit…"

click to enlarge

"This is a stark contrast to proposed global warming legislation, which would actually generate enough revenue to reduce the deficit, prevent major price increases on consumers, and still invest in clean energy technologies. These bills would generate billions of dollars in revenue from the auction of “pollution allowances” that the largest emitters must hold for every ton of greenhouse gas pollution emitted annually…The House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, would cut the deficit by $24 billion… There is not a similar score for the draft American Power Act, but it would likely reduce the deficit since Senate budget rules require some of its revenue to go toward deficit reduction…[This] would keep total household cost increases to $1.50 to $3 per week, and that does not include savings from energy efficiency measures…

"These global warming bills would generate ample funds to make significant investments in various clean energy technologies and programs even after reducing the deficit and refunding money to consumers. ACES could produce $65 billion for state and local energy efficiency programs between 2012 and 2020."

click to enlarge

"An energy and global warming bill that only limits carbon pollution from electric utilities, but not from transportation fuels or industrial emitters, would still generate billions of dollars to invest in the clean energy technologies of the future. The carbon pollution reduction program for utilities in the draft American Power Act, for example, could generate as much as $80 billion for clean energy investments from 2013 to 2020…These revenues could boost wind and solar energy, efficiency, electric vehicles, natural gas trucks, and other programs favored by so many senators.

"Politics is the art of the possible. Some senators believe that it is not possible to pass comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation this year, and instead propose to pass an energy only bill to make at least some progress…We could make at least some real progress if these senators were to support establishing reductions for carbon pollution from at least one of the biggest sources—such as power plants. Instead, their reluctance to address our growing energy and climate problems could doom real solutions…[T]heir offer of clean energy programs without any revenue is just a cruel mirage that will condemn the United States to growing dependence on foreign oil and costly global warming pollution."