Local congressmen split on controversial energy bill

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.

"œI 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. "œIn 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).