Emissions bill faces Democratic opposition

[Algorem]

Clean-energy bill poses dilemma for Ohio Democrats; Rep. Kaptur fears consumer impact
Posted by Sabrina Eaton/Plain Dealer Bureau May 27, 2009 23:15PM

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/05/cleanenergy_bill_poses_dilemma.html

WASHINGTON -- The White House and many congressional Democrats hope that by the end of 2009, they'll have passed a bill to promote clean energy and finally curtail global warming. But if objections by industrial-state lawmakers like Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a northern Ohio Democrat, are any gauge, they face a rough road to passage.

Kaptur embodies many Democrats' ideals. She's pro-labor and pro-health-care reform and is a critic of Wall Street's generous bailouts. Her district, which includes part of Lorain County, borders Lake Erie, and she regularly gets congressional money for cleaning the Great Lakes and developing an alternative-energy industry in Toledo.

But she, like many Republicans, is against what some Democrats say is their best chance ever at passing a bill to deal with global warming.

Democrats will need to muster every vote on behalf of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which calls for use of a "cap and trade" system to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels in 2020 and by 83 percent in 2050. The program would cap emissions by industrial polluters and issue pollution allowances they could buy and sell...


COMMENTS (12)

[newfie11]

1. How long is this folly going to continue.

If we had now, what Jimmy Carter tried to pass, the country would be in a much better place as far as oil goes.

It's all about lobbyists buying off congress. Congress isn't working for the people that elected them. They are working for whomever will line their pockets with the most money.

[vincna]

2. Why do you assume she has been paid off?

A cap & trade bill will make electricity substantially more expensive and who do you think is going to have to pay? The cost for allowances will get rolled into the wholesale price of electricity and be passed on to the ratepayers (end users like you and me). Maybe she is just concerned about her constituents having to fork over more to keep the lights and the AC on.

Being from Ohio, she would have additional reasons to oppose this bill. A cap & trade approach to controlling carbon will have the greatest impact on coal-fired generation, likely making it much more expensive compared to other technologies. It is concievable that coal-fired plants will be unable to compete and their owners will be stuck with stranded assets. (If the PSC's allow the owners to recover these stranded costs, that will also be rolled into the rate base, and once again, consumers will pay.) Operators at those plants would lose their jobs and if the demand for coal drops substantially, coal miners will also lose jobs.

Currently, coal accounts for about 55% of the country's electricity production. Most of that generation is in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana. These states produce a lot of coal and they burn a lot of coal. It just might be that Rep. Kaptur is aware of what cap & trade will mean for Ohio and doesn't want to see her constituents get screwed. By the way, don't be surprised if other congressmen and congresswomen from coal burning or coal producing states don't oppose the legislation as well.

[Nihil]

3. Because she is taking the big money's short-term position to the detriment of the future

> Maybe she is just concerned about her constituents having to fork over
> more to keep the lights and the AC on.

As opposed to using their brains and switching things off/down?
Higher prices provide a good incentive for even the most stupid to start
conserving and reduce waste. The sensible ones have already been doing
this but such indirect encouragement is needed for the "slower" members
of the community.


> A cap & trade approach to controlling carbon will have the greatest
> impact on coal-fired generation, likely making it much more expensive
> compared to other technologies.

Correct. That is a large part of the reason for introducing it.


> These states produce a lot of coal and they burn a lot of coal.

Correct. That needs to change but it doesn't look like the industry
(or its supporters) have any interest whatsoever in making the change.


> By the way, don't be surprised if other congressmen and congresswomen
> from coal burning or coal producing states don't oppose the legislation
> as well.

I have no doubt that other congressmen/congresswomen are at least as
corrupt and susceptible to bribes as she is. I don't consider her worse
than others but, by accepting the short-term profit at the cost of the
long-term tragedy, she is every bit as guilty.

[kristopher]

4. Well said. nt

[vincna]

5. I think you're missing my point

Is there any evidence that she has actually been bribed?

Everyone thinks reducing GHG's is a good idea, but no one talks about the cost. A cap & trade program will make electricity much more expensive and when the extra cost show up in voters' electric bills, a lot of them are going to be really pissed off. The impact will be especially hard in Ohio and Kaptur probably does not want to be on record as having created the "problem". That's political reality, not corruption.

Why do you think Pennsylvania didn't sign up for the RGGI Program?

[pscot]

6. Your point seems to miss the point

Entirely. Not everyone thinks reducing GHGs is a good idea, and the cost is the first thing opponents bring up. It's going to cost ordinary people money. Do you believe there are no costs associated with a big rise in global temperatures? Higher prices will bring down emissions. If you have a better idea for getting there we'd love to hear it.

[vincna]

7. If there is a big rise in global temperatures,...

there will certainly be very high costs. You are correct, however that a substantial number of people do not believe that GHG's are driving climate change. Many believe that solar cycles are the principal driver and that the Earth will begin a cooling cycle that will last for several decades. To be fair, there is still disagreement on the issue.

The point I've been getting at is political practicality - what politicians worry about when they decide what to support or oppose. I don't think most voters give the GHG issue a whole lot of thought or even understand it that well. People do understand electricity bills and if they go up big time, they'll be big time upset about it. I don't believe they'll be satisfied with an explanation about impacts that could materialize in a few decades, especially if they're hurting economically in the here and now. Politicians will see that situation as a big risk to their re-election. How many times have you seen a politician "do the right thing" even if it might cost them an election? (I'm drawing a blank on that question. How about you?) I think this is where Kaptur is - it's not the high road, but it's not corruption either. In some states (New York, New Jersey, California, the New England states, may be Oregon and Washington), cap and trade will be an easy sell, but Ohio is not one of them.

I personally don't believe the situation is as critical as some make it out to be. I think we have time to implement a solution that has a variety of elements. Renewables (wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc.) should have a big role, but that will take a decade or two to implement and won't be able to carry the load by themselves. If we're serious about GHG's, nuclear power is the only available technology that could provide large amount of capacity in a reasonable period of time, and at that we're looking at 10 - 15 years to build a fleet of advanced nuclear plants. Demand Side Reduction (DSR or conservation) should also be a big element in the future. DSR programs are already competing with traditional generation in certain parts of the country and that's a good thing. As fossil fuels get more expensive, I believe their use for power generation will decline for economic reasons alone, even without cap and trade.