Waxman's committee meets with America's top lobbyist

Posted by: Michael Noble in federal issuescarbon regulation on  

As the Waxman Markey Clean Energy Jobs Plan continues to be debated in committee, the number one energy advocate weighed in today--President Obama, who said that getting America moving with a new energy economy was "my number one priority" a few days before the election. Meeting with committee members of the Energy and Commerce committee in the White House, the President again urged quick action, and reminded members about the core design principles for an energy policy that cuts carbon emissions, limiting and lowering them over time.

Here's a snippet from a story in today's Washington Post:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs read a synopsis of the meeting at his daily briefing this afternoon. "The President outlined core principles that should guide the energy legislation as the Committee finalizes it," Gibbs said. "The President believes that consumers and communities should be compensated if, during the transition period, there are any additional costs associated with reducing carbon emissions. He believes there should be predictability and certainty in the market, so that entrepreneurs can make major private sector investments in clean energy innovation. He also believes that regional impacts should be taken into account and addressed -- and that our trade sensitive industries need to be protected."

Those are the key ideas:

  1. Give markets a clear and predictable price signal for carbon dioxide emissions that rises over time, high enough and reliable enough to drive huge innovation and massive private investment.
  2. Protect and compensate consumers and communities and industries facing transition.

Patricia Lopez's story in the Sunday StarTribune shows that utilities are lobbying legislators hard to give them free CO2 permits for the coal that they burn, saying that they can use the free permits to hold down electric bills. That approach nullifies the main point of the legislation: driving clean energy investment and innovation.

It's not just clean energy advocates who say the utilities have a bad plan. Giving free permits to utilities under the guise of holding down increases in utilities bills is a flawed way to protect consumers according to consumer and low income advocacy groups such as  the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which published a new paper on this point last week. Giving consumers rebates is the best way: we can squeeze carbon out of the economy without squeezing families. Put in a positive way, we can protect the planet while we protect the buying power of American families.

People ask Fresh Energy what we think are the most important features of a carbon capping portion of the Clean Energy Jobs Plan.  We think the President has it exactly right. That's what Fresh Energy is "for" in the climate bill.

Comments (3)Add Comment
...
written by Tom, May 05, 2009
If there is some form of giving assistance to reduce the price shock of a cap and trade system, it will simply be another price distortion and require increased taxes to fund. You can't have a cap and trade system with economic growth, nor can you have cap and trade without a devastating amount of cost increases in virtually every area of life.
...
written by Michael Noble, May 07, 2009
Thanks Tom for your comment.

The goal of cap and trade should be to squeeze the CO2 pollution out of the economy without squeezing families or energy-intensive businesses. There's no point in eroding the purchasing power of America's families to solve global warming--Americans won't stand for it. There's no advantage to the environment having steel made in India instead of the US. A good carbon cap policy protects the families and the productive industries, while shifting to clean energy technologies. The US economy needs abundant affordable energy, it does not need emissions dumped into the atmosphere. There is no economic advantage to the buildup of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere: on the contrary, Sir Nicholas Stern's study showed that the cost of inaction FAR outweighs solving the problem. Numerous economic studies show that deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions be done a very very low net economic impact.

Thanks for tracking us at Fresh Energy.
...
written by ray schmitz, May 09, 2009
There is one fundamental problem with cap and anything, where do we, emphasis we, get the moral authority to permit ourselves to continue to over use the resources of the world, including the air. The corollary to that is where do we get the moral authority to tell the other 90 % of the world that they should not have the right to use the resources of the world for their betterment now that we have created a crisis.
Moving beyond that cap and scam, the most popular current idea, suffers from the basic problem that it has failed in Europe and the model here is not different, even if there were a way to keep the excess profits out of the hands of the speculators, the same good folks who have given us the current fiscal crisis by the way, there still is the problem that others point out with disproportionate impact on the low income. Michael's cap and dividend does resolve the issue of impact to some degree, although the formula will need to be complex to spread the benefits to those most affected. The current global markets have demonstrated in Europe that the carbon footprint does move to counties with lax controls, the question is does the current world legal system allow for countries utilizing carbon limits to control the movement of goods into their market from areas with no controls. Biofuels are a good example in Europe.
The location of the carbon cost at the energy source does simplify the assessment of value, however, I am concerned that those who are pedaling technology, such as coal to gas/liquid, will see this as a source of funding for their inefficient products. This suggests to me that a auctioned carbon cap, which is a tax under a politically palatable label, as Michael suggests, combined with the dividend and having no trading component or offsets and paying a 100% dividend could actually work.
Obviously, the problem is that it is far too simple and does not accommodate the diverse interests who are looking to make money of the cap and scan system.

Write comment

busy