Controversial Emissions Bill Includes Support for Heating Oil Programs

(image: terradaily.com)

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the House Energy and Commerce Committee had released a 932-page bill “designed to bring together a coalition of lawmakers, industries and environmental groups behind the regulation of greenhouse gases.”

The legislation sets national targets for gradually lowering total greenhouse-gas emissions, but will also give allowances to utilities and energy-intensive industries which they can use to cover fuel costs or sell to other firms in a practice known as “cap and trade.” The bill would effectively pre-empt the EPA from forcing industries to reduce emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) are the co-authors of the bill which Waxman said “will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, promote America’s energy independence and security, and cut global warming pollution.” Markey said the bill “marks the dawn of the clean-energy age.”

Rep. Waxman (image: AFP via Google)

The bill was hailed by some environmental leaders and by leading Democrats. Interestingly, it was also hailed by some of the country’s biggest utilities and industries, usually the unhappy targets of clean air legislation.

Some economists and environmentalists say the bill contains too many concessions to oil and coal industries and compromises on targets for renewable energy use and reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions. The draft sets a goal of cutting emissions by 17 percent by 2020, a smaller reduction than Waxman’s initial goal of 20 percent. Major utilities said that even the lower number is ambitious, but some environmental groups said it falls short of what’s needed to slow climate change.
Experts said that billions of dollars would go to local electricity providers, oil companies and energy-intensive industries. Low- and middle-income earners would also get protection, some in the form of money allotted to heating oil assistance programs, but many economists said consumers would have been better served by tax cuts. There are some fears that the cost of complying with tougher standards will force utilities to raise prices.

The American College of Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL) evaluated the bill in a statement:

Concerns have already been voiced about costs of compliance and raising the cost of conventional energy to the middle class. Some groups are critical of the bill because it allows carbon offsets, a perceived area of potential abuse. Some groups believe that the bill is not strict enough, making too many concessions at the outset, increasing the likelihood that it will be diluted through further legislative compromise. And then there is that pesky question of what to do with the revenues (taxes) generated from the anticipated cap and trade program (consumer rebates, deficit reductions, investment in sustainable energy programs, etc.). This is a greenhouse gas reduction bill to watch.

Others think the state of greenhouse gas emissions is already so bad that the EPA shouldn’t wait for the bill to make its way through congress, but act now independently.

The AP said on Monday May 18;

The Environmental Protection Agency should not wait for Congress before taking steps to control the gases blamed for global warming, supporters of federal greenhouse-gas regulation said Monday.  “We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions now without further delay and without waiting for a perfect solution,” said Navis Bermudez, speaking on behalf of New York Gov. David A. Paterson. “While we also hope that Congress enacts comprehensive federal climate change legislation, we believe EPA can act now under the existing Clean Air Act without waiting for such legislation.”