Last Friday the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a vote of 219 to 212, with this area’s two Democratic congressmen voting the opposite way on the issue.

U.S. Rep. Zack Space, D-Dover, voted in favor of the legislation while U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-St. Clairsville, was one of 44 Democrats voting against it.

Wilson said that he doesn’t believe the legislation goes far enough to protect energy consumers and industries in Ohio’s 6th Congressional District, which he represents.

“I believe that coal must and will play a major role in our nation’s transition to energy independence,” Wilson said in a statement after the vote. “In Ohio, 86 percent of our electricity comes from coal. And the vast majority of that coal comes from Appalachian Ohio.”

Because the district is located in an area of the country that heavily relies on coal for electricity, Wilson said, Ohio families “and her energy-intensive industries, like steel, will bear the brunt of the cost from this version of climate change legislation.”

The centerpiece of the legislation is a “cap and trade” program that sets a ceiling on emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and allows polluting industries to trade emission permits or allowances to meet it.

pace, from Ohio’s 18th Congressional District, said in a release that the legislation would make unprecedented investments in Ohio’s coal industry, creating thousands of jobs.

“I worked with and also stood up to members of both parties to make sure this bill protects Ohio businesses while laying the groundwork for new jobs and lower prices for Ohio consumers,” Space said. “From securing a future for Ohio coal to creating new opportunities for our steelworkers and our manufacturers, it is time we finally declare our energy independence, making our nation stronger, more prosperous, and more secure.”

One of the bigger concessions during the negotiation of the bill, according to The New York Times, went to utilities, which wanted assurances that they could continue to operate and build coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. In a deal negotiated by U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., utilities received tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, as well as billions for work on “clean-coal” technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion to help meet future pollution targets.

said that the legislation would invest $180 billion in clean-coal technology, making Ohio a leader in energy production. Additionally, he said the bill would create thousands of jobs in Ohio and generate opportunities for local industries, as well as ensure that savings would be passed directly on to consumers. His release said that 59,000 lower-income households in the 18th district would see a net income gain from the legislation thanks to offset payment provisions that Space secured.

The National Republican Congressional Committee went after Space for his vote, saying that the legislation would lead to higher energy costs for Ohioans.

“Whatever favors Zack Space might have traded for his support for [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi’s National Energy Tax, they hardly make up for the higher energy costs and lost jobs that will plague East Ohio as a result of Space’s Washington horse trading,” said spokesperson Ken Spain.

In an editorial, the New Philadelphia Times-Reporter illustrated the argument against “cap and trade” with how it would affect coal-producing regions in the Midwest.

“If CO2 credits trade at $10 per ton, the price of natural gas will increase 12.6 percent, electricity in the Midwest would increase 10.62 percent, gasoline will increase 9 cents a gallon, and diesel will increase 10 cents a gallon. But if CO2 credits trade at $100 per ton, hold on to your wallets. Natural gas prices would jump 126 percent, electricity in the Midwest would increase 106 percent, gasoline would jump 88 cents a gallon and diesel would increase $1.01 a gallon.”

In a column in yesterday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman praised the bill, though he did criticize it for being watered down. “For all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions,” he wrote. “Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean-energy initiatives everywhere.”

As for members of Congress who voted against it, especially in the GOP, Friedman asked, “What are Republicans thinking? It is not as if they put forward a different strategy, like a carbon tax. Does the GOP want to be the party of sex scandals and polluters or does it want to be a partner in helping America dominate the next great global industry: E.T. — energy technology?”

An article from the Los Angeles Times this week reported that the legislation made concessions that “substantially soften its effect on coal – at least over the next decade or so. The EPA projects Obama’s plan would slow the growth in coal over what would have occurred in the absence of emission limits,” the paper reported. “Emissions from coal would grow at roughly the same rate as overall coal use, until ‘clean-coal’ technology becomes commercially viable. Under the plan, the EPA projects that after 2020, conventional coal use would begin to fall quickly. That prediction rests on a still-uncertain assumption that new nuclear power plants would begin to come on line.”

The legislation still must make its way through the Senate. Wilson said he is eager to see what that bill looks like. Pending passage in the Senate, the bill would then be negotiated in conference committee between the two chambers, the result of which would go before each body for final passage and then sent to President Barack Obama for his signature.

U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, told Bloomberg news that the legislation contains “a lot of crap” that he said would probably delay approval of the measure this year.Voinovich said proposed emission reductions in the bill go too far. “I think the goal of 17 percent by 2020, even though by European standards is not that high, I think it’s too high for us,” Voinovich told Bloomberg. He continued that he still sees a possibility of getting something meaningful accomplished.

The bill included a measure from U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to create a $30 billion revolving-loan program to help auto parts suppliers and other small and mid-sized manufacturers retool for the clean-energy industry. Democrats control the U.S. Senate 60-40.

The bill also contains the following key provisions, provided by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce:

• Requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.

• Invests $190 billion in new clean-energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).

• Mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.

• Reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17 percent by 2020 and over 80 percent by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.

• Protects consumers from price increases. According to analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation will cost each household less than 50 cents per day in 2020 (not including energy-efficiency savings).

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

American Clean Energy and Security Act and the importance of agriculture’s inclusion in forthcoming climate legislation.
written by Dennis Spisak, July 02, 2009

Charlie Wilson is wrong on the climate bill. He forgot to think about farmers in his distirct.

There were several key components of the American Clean Energy and Security Act that are critical to ensuring that agriculture will be a strong contributor to curbing the impacts of climate change including:
o A robust offset trading market will be widely available to producers. To ensure this type of market, the USDA will now implement this program with farm and forestry projects to offset carbon emissions from the capped sectors instead of the EPA. This will result in greater producer participation.
o Producers will have good opportunities to generate wind and solar energy, and to utilize digester technologies to producer biogas or electricity. Further, additional changes make biomass power generation more accessible to producers.
o Several provisions in the bill recognize pioneering producers who have already begun to institute conservation and stewardship practice that sequester carbon.
• This legislation provides the possibility for hundreds of millions of acres of farmland to be tended with greater conservation practices.
• Agriculture has a key role to play in US efforts to curb climate change and any legislation that is written for this purpose must include a role for agriculture. When the house votes again later this year on climate legislation, ask them to make sure that agriculture is included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just another reason why a yes vote was important on this bill. Too bad Ohio Congressman Charlie Wilson who also lives in a rural area failed to see the benefits to farmers, but could only see the problems this bill would cause to his big time lobbyists in the coal industry. Charlie Wilson doesn’t support farmers in his district, He only supports Dirty Coal Lobbyists!

Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green party

www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Charlie Wilson was right!
written by Andrew Kitchen, July 03, 2009

I thank Charlie Wilson for voting no on a bill that was rushed through the House. This bill will rise energy cost in a recessionary market, and bind America with the same failing bureaucratic practices that can be seen in the economic state of emergency in California. I personally do not want to pay more for energy when I do not have money to put gas in my car. This bill will hurt Athens because it will raise energy costs. A major source for economic growth in Athens is the student population. If the students have to pay more for Electric and Gas, that’s less money that goes into the local economy. Less money means less income and less work for people. Our unemployment as a nation is around 9.5%, and it is expected to rise to 10 or 11%. Having higher energy costs will do nothing to help the unemployed.
And finally I think it is fool hearty to model some of California’s policies in this bill when California economy is melting down. At the very least this bill needs to be struck down and rewrote with policies that will not raise the cost of energy and kill jobs. I believe that there are more viable options for keeping our environment clean. Nuclear energy is clean and has a higher output than unreliable wind and solar energy.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Putting off tough decisions is only going to hurt us.
written by Marley Soluna, July 03, 2009

We've been living pretty irresponsibly in this country, simply because it is easier and cheaper, "good for the economy".

It is time to stop whining that getting our act together is going to be too expensive and too hard. Wake up, folks! (I'm looking at you, Mr Wilson!) Most things worth doing aren't easy. What kind of example are we setting for our children? I don't want to look my daughter in the eye ten years from now, when she's 12 and questioning EVERYTHING, and have to explain why it was too expensive and too hard for us to do something about our environment before it was too late.

My small family barely scrapes by at the poverty line, but I will gladly start living off rice, beans, the things I grow in my garden, and what we can find in the woods if that's what it takes. It's just money, just creature comforts we're whining about going without.

It's time to stop being so selfish. Imagine how silly and stupid we look to the people of Tuvalu. Imagine how silly and stupid we will look to generations to come. This carbon bill is an okay first step, but it certainly doesn't go far enough.

And hey, Mr Spisak, hope you run again next time, you'll get my family's votes again!

• 
• +0
• 
•