by Daniel J. Weiss
This piece was co-written by Kate Gordon, vice president for energy policy at American Progress.
A critical element of President Obama’s domestic agenda is
transforming the United States to a low-carbon-pollution economy, which
would spur recovery, create jobs, and generate long-term prosperity.
The president also made clear in his State of the Union address this year that we need to ramp up our exports, especially of clean
energy technologies, if we are going to stay competitive in the global
economy. Comprehensive, bipartisan clean energy legislation that
establishes a price on carbon pollution could provide the resources for
a strong clean energy investment agenda. Yet an “energy-only” bill that
excludes pollution limits and leaves carbon unpriced would make it
difficult to raise the investment dollars we need to boost American
competitiveness in the global clean energy market.
Achieving the president’s goals requires comprehensive clean energy
and global warming pollution reduction legislation. Nearly every other
country that has pulled ahead in the race to innovate, develop,
manufacture, deploy, and export clean energy and efficiency systems has
done so through a set of comprehensive policy and investment measures.
For example, Germany has invested heavily in the creation of a domestic clean energy industry, in part due to the European Union’s overall “20-20-20” goal:
20 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, 20
percent use of renewable power, and 20 percent reduction in energy use.
Germany has responded by spurring market demand; helping to finance
clean energy innovation, production, and deployment; and investing in
the infrastructure necessary to move renewable electricity to market.
As a result, it is the “global
leader in installed solar energy capacity … Germany was the number
one renewable energy system exporter in the world from 2003 to 2008.”
China, meanwhile, races ahead of the United States. A Pew Charitable Trusts analysis found that China leads the world’s major economies in clean energy
investments. According to their research, in 2009 “China invested $34.6
billion in the clean energy economy—nearly double the United States’
total of $18.6 billion.” China is now the world leader in solar PV cell production—a technology that was invented in the United States. It is time for us to catch up.
An effective clean energy investment strategy has two necessary and
interrelated parts. This first is a shrinking limit and a rising price
on carbon pollution to drive the private sector to invest in and deploy
low-carbon technologies. The second is a set of targeted investments in
clean energy technology sectors. These investments would help the
United States overcome short-term barriers such as lack of up-front
financing that have stalled the wind, solar, geothermal, and energy
efficiency sectors from getting to commercial scale. They would also
move forward the energy innovations of the future through research,
development, and commercialization.
A global warming program that establishes a shrinking limit on
carbon pollution and leads to a rising price on carbon would help drive
massive private investment toward these clean energy technologies. Venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric President Jeff Immelt noted that the United States must “send a long term signal that
low-carbon energy is valuable. We must put a price on carbon and a cap
on carbon emissions. No long-term signal means no serious innovation at
scale, which means fewer American success stories.”
Forty-five members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition recently urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) to
ensure that “comprehensive energy legislation includes reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions necessary to spur private investment in
American clean energy technologies.” They also noted that “billions of
dollars of private capital sit on the sidelines in the United States as
investors and banks wait for the price signal that a limit on
greenhouse gas emission [sic] will provide.”
And the head of New England’s power grid sounded a sobering note last week when he argued that renewable energy projects in the region
are popular but on hold, mostly due to market uncertainty. “The single
greatest issue facing the operation, expansion, and regulation of the
power system is the uncertainty about national energy policy,” he said.
In short, these leaders are all saying that there is little
short-term economic incentive to abandon the status quo absent a
pollution price-even if that course leads to a long-run economic
disaster.
Setting a price on carbon is not only critical for America’s
long-term competitiveness; it is necessary to pay for the energy
programs that will help companies, consumers, and workers make a smooth
and swift transition to a low-carbon economy. The House and Senate have
already proposed some very effective policies and programs to help with
this transition, all of which carry significant costs.
House and Senate low-carbon economy proposals
Program
Bill #
Estimated cost
Clean Energy Deployment Administration
S. 1462
$10 billion
HOME STAR Program
S. 3177
$6 billion
Building STAR Program
S. 3079
$6 billion
Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act
S. 1617
$30 billion
State and local energy efficiency programs (2012-20)
H.R. 2454
$65 billion
Cash for Coal Clunkers
n/a
n/a
NAT GAS Act
S. 1408
unspecified
Siting of Interstate Transmission Lines
S. 1462
unspecified
Total
$114 billion
Taken together, these programs could cost at least $114 billion.
This excludes the costs for the NAT GAS Act and the siting of new
interstate transmission lines, which could add billions more to this
price tag. Yet these investments are essential to provide the start up
capital for some new technologies and speed commercial deployment of
others.
Most global warming bills would use a small amount of revenue from
the sale of global warming pollution permits to fund these and similar
clean energy investment programs. The House of Representatives took
major strides to spur investment in June 2009 by passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454.
This bill establishes a price on carbon pollution—a critical market
driver that makes low-carbon technologies cost competitive with
traditional fossil fuels. ACES combines this pollution price with a $24 billion investment in
specific incentives for research, development, and production of these
technologies. These programs would create demand for low-carbon
technologies with essential investment dollars that would enable the
alternative and efficient energy industries to scale up and make their
products as affordable and available as possible.
The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733,
which passed the Senate Environment Committee on Nov. 5, 2009,
would also invest at least $6.5 billion in clean energy programs.
Both these bills generate enough revenue to provide seed capital for
clean energy investments, protect ratepayers from price increases, and
even reduce the federal budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that ACES would reduce the deficit by $24 billion from 2010-19, while S. 1733 would reduce it by $21 billion from 2010-19.
The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, S. 2877,
which is pending in the Senate but with no action scheduled, would also
invest in clean energy technologies. It would return to taxpayers three
quarters of the revenue generated by its “cap-and-dividend” program,
while using the other quarter for a Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund for investments including “clean energy R&D … and need-based, regionally-specific assistance for communities and workers transitioning to a clean energy economy.”
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman
(I-Conn.) are drafting a comprehensive bipartisan energy bill, expected by
mid-April. According to Sen. Graham,
this legislation could invest as much as 40 percent of the funds
generated from its limits on carbon pollution from utilities and
industrial sources back into clean energy.
Yet some senators are opposed to such legislation despite the pressing need to move forward with a clean energy
investment agenda. These senators instead advocate passage of an
energy-only bill that would not adequately spur investment in clean
energy technologies-even though there is little hope of catching up to
our global competitors in the clean energy race without a strong
investment strategy.
The fundamental flaw in an energy-only bill is that it would not
include a price signal to favor investments in low-carbon energy or any
revenue-raising elements to provide seed capital to invest in the
transition to a clean energy economy.
For instance, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, S. 1462,
which passed the Senate Energy Committee on July 16, 2009, would not
limit or put a price on carbon pollution. Potential investors in clean
energy technology would continue to lack certainty about the future
market for clean energy, and investments in underpriced dirty fossil
fuels would remain relatively attractive.
ACELA does include several important clean energy investment
programs, including the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or
“Green Bank,” and assistance for manufacturing to become more energy
efficient and competitive. It would also provide financial assistance
to the nuclear energy industry and has a renewable electricity standard
that could increase investments in wind and solar if it were enhanced.
Yet CBO estimates that ACELA “would increase budget deficits by about $13.5 billion over the
2010-2019 period.” Put simply, the clean energy programs included in
this bill are not paid for.
Any energy bill that does not include revenue raisers to pay for
investment programs will only add to the budget deficit. One potential
revenue raiser is the elimination of tax breaks for big oil companies,
which could generate $36.5 billion over 10 years. Comprehensive energy
bills also create revenue from their limits on carbon pollution. Yet
energy-only bills do not include such a provision or establish a price
on carbon pollution, and would therefore have to increase the deficit
to pay for its investments.
Basing investment programs on the assumption that Congress will
continue to borrow to pay for them is a high-risk proposition that
could create uncertainty about these programs. And companies may shy
away from such investment programs if funding is uncertain or unstable.
The United States must promptly take steps to boost its investments
in clean energy technologies to keep up with our economic competitors.
A price on carbon pollution is an essential ingredient in this strategy
to level the economic playing field between dirty, old fossil fuel
energy and new, cleaner efficiency and renewables. A carbon pollution
price is also essential to provide the funds for an investment agenda.
An energy-only bill lacks these two elements.
Sen. Graham worries that: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy.” He warned that an energy-only bill is a “‘kick the can down the road’ approach
… It’s putting off to another Congress what really needs to be done
comprehensively. I don’t think you’ll ever have energy independence …
until you start dealing with carbon pollution and pricing carbon.”
An energy-only bill might address some important energy needs, but
is unlikely to provide the investments essential to transforming of our
economy or help us catch up in the clean energy technology race for the
future.
Provisions necessary in a comprehensive clean energy bill
We believe that a truly bipartisan, comprehensive clean energy bill
should include these important energy provisions, along with a
mechanism to raise the revenue to pay for them.
Clean Energy Deployment Administration: $10 billion
The creation of a federal Clean Energy Deployment Administration would provide the initial public investment to help drive the market
commercialization of clean energy technologies. CEDA would provide loan
guarantees, so the federal government would only need to fund the cost
of any potential default, rather than funding the entire cost of a
direct loan or grant. This subsidy would
leverage private investments, and a $10 billion appropriation—the
amount included in the Senate bill—would actually produce about $100
billion in investments.
The House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454,
includes CEDA. The Senate Energy Committee passed American Clean Energy
Leadership Act, S. 1462, includes a slightly different version of it.
HOME STAR program: $6 billion over 1-2 years
The HOME STAR program would create incentives for American homeowners to quickly cut their
monthly energy bills by 20 percent or more by improving the energy
efficiency of their homes. It would establish a $6 billion rebate
program over the next one to two years to encourage immediate
investment in cost-effective energy efficient products and services as
well as whole-home energy efficiency retrofits. The program would be
facilitated and coordinated through existing state programs using
federal standards and incentives as a common platform to keep program
costs as low as possible. It could create thousands of construction
jobs.
The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment passed a bipartisan HOME STAR bill on March 24. Sens. Jeff Bingaman
(D-N.M.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced a
similar proposal, S. 3177.
Building STAR Program: $6 billion over one to two years
Building STAR would provide rebates and tax incentives to quickly
put hundreds of thousands of people to work conducting energy efficient
retrofits of commercial and multi-family residential buildings. It
would rebate approximately 30 percent of the cost of installing energy
efficient products and/or providing energy efficiency. The program
would leverage $2 to $3 dollars of private investment for every $1 of
federal investment. Every $1 billion investment would create 25,000
jobs-many in the hard hit construction industry. And it could reduce
industry energy costs by $3.3 billion annually. Sen. Jeff Merkley
(D-Ore.) introduced the Building Star Energy Efficiency Act, S. 3079 on March 4, 2010.
Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act: $30 billion
The Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act,
S. 1617, would authorize $30 billion for state-revolving loan programs
to assist small- and medium-sized firms in retooling, expanding, or
establishing domestic clean energy manufacturing operations, and to
improve energy efficiency in industrial operations. IMPACT also
provides funding to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to
provide technical assistance to these firms in entering the clean
energy supply chain.
The House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454,
includes a version of IMPACT; IMPACT is also included as a pilot
program in S. 1462, but there is no funding authorization level for the program in that bill.
State and local energy efficiency programs: $65 billion over 8 to 10 years
ACES would provide significant resources to state and local energy efficiency programs by providing them with “pollution permits,” or allowances, that they
could sell on the carbon market. A CAP analysis projects that this
would generate a total of $65 billion between 2012-2020. These revenues
could fund investments such as insulating and weather stripping homes,
constructing “green” rooftops, replacing leaky windows, installing
efficient heating and cooling systems, and replacing inefficient
appliances with those that have high Energy Star ratings. This would
save consumers $63 billion on their electric bills and create up to
137,000 jobs in 2015.
Cash for Coal Clunkers: No authorization level
This program would create incentives to retire or reduce utilization
of dirty, aging coal plants, and increase the use of cleaner power from
natural gas or other cleaner sources. Such a program has not yet been
introduced.
NAT GAS ACT: No authorization level
The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions, S. 1408,
and H.R. 1835, would create tax incentives to power heavy trucks and
fleet vehicles with natural gas instead of diesel or gasoline. This
bill would save the United States millions of barrels of oil over time.
Siting of interstate electric transmission facilities: No authorization level
The United States must enhance its transmission system to increase
its efficiency and reliability. And the expansion of the grid is
essential to transmit electricity from wind and solar power generated
in the more rural or remote places to urban areas where electricity
demand is highest. S. 1462 would strengthen “the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s role in
siting interstate electric transmission facilities.” This includes the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s coordination of regional
planning and back stop authority for federal action if states fail to
plan and construct essential transmission lines, and it would “ensure
just and reasonable allocation of the cost of high-priority national
transmission projects.”
Related Links:
Let’s call setting a price on carbon “puppies”
China to de-stink landfill problem with giant deodorant guns
From Pyramids to Paris, landmarks to go dark for Earth Hour