\ntransforming the United States to a low-carbon-pollution economy, which
\nwould spur recovery, create jobs, and generate long-term prosperity.
\nThe president also made clear in his State of the Union address<\/a> this year that we need to ramp up our exports, especially of clean
\nenergy technologies, if we are going to stay competitive in the global
\neconomy. Comprehensive, bipartisan clean energy legislation that
\nestablishes a price on carbon pollution could provide the resources for
\na strong clean energy investment agenda. Yet an “energy-only” bill that
\nexcludes pollution limits and leaves carbon unpriced would make it
\ndifficult to raise the investment dollars we need to boost American
\ncompetitiveness in the global clean energy market.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Achieving the president’s goals requires comprehensive clean energy <\/p>\n China, meanwhile, races ahead of the United States. A Pew Charitable Trusts analysis<\/a> found that China leads the world’s major economies in clean energy <\/p>\n An effective clean energy investment strategy has two necessary and <\/p>\n A global warming program that establishes a shrinking limit on <\/p>\n Forty-five members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition recently urged<\/a> Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) to <\/p>\n And the head of New England’s power grid sounded a sobering note<\/a> last week when he argued that renewable energy projects in the region <\/p>\n In short, these leaders are all saying that there is little <\/p>\n Setting a price on carbon is not only critical for America’s House and Senate low-carbon economy proposals<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Program<\/p>\n Bill #<\/p>\n Estimated cost<\/p>\n Clean Energy Deployment Administration \nHOME STAR Program \nBuilding STAR Program \nInvestments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act \nState and local energy efficiency programs (2012-20) \nCash for Coal Clunkers \nNAT GAS Act \nSiting of Interstate Transmission Lines \nTotal<\/strong> Taken together, these programs could cost at least $114 billion. <\/p>\n Most global warming bills would use a small amount of revenue from <\/p>\n The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act<\/a>, S. 1733, <\/p>\n Both these bills generate enough revenue to provide seed capital for <\/p>\n The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act<\/a>, S. 2877, <\/p>\n Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman <\/p>\n Yet some senators are opposed to such legislation<\/a> despite the pressing need to move forward with a clean energy <\/p>\n The fundamental flaw in an energy-only bill is that it would not <\/p>\n For instance, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act<\/a>, S. 1462, <\/p>\n ACELA does include several important clean energy investment <\/p>\n Any energy bill that does not include revenue raisers to pay for <\/p>\n Basing investment programs on the assumption that Congress will <\/p>\n The United States must promptly take steps to boost its investments <\/p>\n Sen. Graham worries that<\/a>: “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<\/a> that an energy-only bill is a “‘kick the can down the road’ approach <\/p>\n An energy-only bill might address some important energy needs, but Provisions necessary in a comprehensive clean energy bill<\/p>\n We believe that a truly bipartisan, comprehensive clean energy bill \nClean Energy Deployment Administration: $10 billion<\/p>\n The creation of a federal Clean Energy Deployment Administration<\/a> would provide the initial public investment to help drive the market <\/p>\n The House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, \nHOME STAR program: $6 billion over 1-2 years<\/p>\n The HOME STAR program<\/a> would create incentives for American homeowners to quickly cut their <\/p>\n The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment<\/a> passed a bipartisan HOME STAR bill on March 24. Sens. Jeff Bingaman \nBuilding STAR Program: $6 billion over one to two years<\/p>\n Building STAR would provide rebates and tax incentives to quickly \nInvestments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act: $30 billion<\/p>\n The Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act, <\/p>\n The House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, \nState and local energy efficiency programs: $65 billion over 8 to 10 years<\/p>\n ACES would provide significant resources to state and local energy efficiency programs<\/a> by providing them with “pollution permits,” or allowances, that they \nCash for Coal Clunkers: No authorization level<\/p>\n This program would create incentives to retire or reduce utilization \nNAT GAS ACT: No authorization level<\/p>\n The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions<\/a>, S. 1408, \nSiting of interstate electric transmission facilities: No authorization level<\/p>\n The United States must enhance its transmission system to increase Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Let’s call setting a price on carbon “puppies”<\/a><\/p>\n China to de-stink landfill problem with giant deodorant guns<\/a><\/p>\n From Pyramids to Paris, landmarks to go dark for Earth Hour<\/a><\/p>\n
\nand global warming pollution reduction legislation. Nearly every other
\ncountry that has pulled ahead in the race to innovate, develop,
\nmanufacture, deploy, and export clean energy and efficiency systems has
\ndone so through a set of comprehensive policy and investment measures.
\nFor example, Germany has invested heavily<\/a> in the creation of a domestic clean energy industry, in part due to the European Union’s overall “20-20-20” goal<\/a>:
\n20 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, 20
\npercent use of renewable power, and 20 percent reduction in energy use.
\nGermany has responded by spurring market demand; helping to finance
\nclean energy innovation, production, and deployment; and investing in
\nthe infrastructure necessary to move renewable electricity to market.
\nAs a result, it is the “global
\nleader in installed solar energy capacity<\/a> … Germany was the number
\none renewable energy system exporter in the world from 2003 to 2008.”<\/p>\n
\ninvestments. According to their research, in 2009 “China invested $34.6
\nbillion in the clean energy economy—nearly double the United States’
\ntotal of $18.6 billion.” China is now the world leader in solar PV cell production<\/a>—a technology that was invented in the United States. It is time for us to catch up.<\/p>\n
\ninterrelated parts. This first is a shrinking limit and a rising price
\non carbon pollution to drive the private sector to invest in and deploy
\nlow-carbon technologies. The second is a set of targeted investments in
\nclean energy technology sectors. These investments would help the
\nUnited States overcome short-term barriers such as lack of up-front
\nfinancing that have stalled the wind, solar, geothermal, and energy
\nefficiency sectors from getting to commercial scale. They would also
\nmove forward the energy innovations of the future through research,
\ndevelopment, and commercialization.<\/p>\n
\ncarbon pollution and leads to a rising price on carbon would help drive
\nmassive private investment toward these clean energy technologies. Venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric President Jeff Immelt<\/a> noted that the United States must “send a long term signal that
\nlow-carbon energy is valuable. We must put a price on carbon and a cap
\non carbon emissions. No long-term signal means no serious innovation at
\nscale, which means fewer American success stories.”<\/p>\n
\nensure that “comprehensive energy legislation includes reductions in
\ngreenhouse gas emissions necessary to spur private investment in
\nAmerican clean energy technologies.” They also noted that “billions of
\ndollars of private capital sit on the sidelines in the United States as
\ninvestors and banks wait for the price signal that a limit on
\ngreenhouse gas emission [sic] will provide.”<\/p>\n
\nare popular but on hold, mostly due to market uncertainty. “The single
\ngreatest issue facing the operation, expansion, and regulation of the
\npower system is the uncertainty about national energy policy,” he said.<\/p>\n
\nshort-term economic incentive to abandon the status quo absent a
\npollution price-even if that course leads to a long-run economic
\ndisaster.<\/p>\n
\nlong-term competitiveness; it is necessary to pay for the energy
\nprograms that will help companies, consumers, and workers make a smooth
\nand swift transition to a low-carbon economy. The House and Senate have
\nalready proposed some very effective policies and programs to help with
\nthis transition, all of which carry significant costs.<\/p>\n
\nS. 1462
\n$10 billion<\/p>\n
\nS. 3177
\n$6 billion<\/p>\n
\nS. 3079
\n$6 billion<\/p>\n
\nS. 1617
\n$30 billion<\/p>\n
\nH.R. 2454
\n$65 billion<\/p>\n
\nn\/a
\nn\/a<\/p>\n
\nS. 1408
\nunspecified<\/p>\n
\nS. 1462
\nunspecified<\/p>\n
\n
\n$114 billion<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nThis excludes the costs for the NAT GAS Act and the siting of new
\ninterstate transmission lines, which could add billions more to this
\nprice tag. Yet these investments are essential to provide the start up
\ncapital for some new technologies and speed commercial deployment of
\nothers.<\/p>\n
\nthe sale of global warming pollution permits to fund these and similar
\nclean energy investment programs. The House of Representatives took
\nmajor strides to spur investment in June 2009 by passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act<\/a>, H.R. 2454.
\nThis bill establishes a price on carbon pollution—a critical market
\ndriver that makes low-carbon technologies cost competitive with
\ntraditional fossil fuels. ACES combines this pollution price with a $24 billion investment <\/a> in
\nspecific incentives for research, development, and production of these
\ntechnologies. These programs would create demand for low-carbon
\ntechnologies with essential investment dollars that would enable the
\nalternative and efficient energy industries to scale up and make their
\nproducts as affordable and available as possible.<\/p>\n
\nwhich passed the Senate Environment Committee on Nov. 5, 2009,
\nwould also invest at least $6.5 billion in clean energy programs.<\/p>\n
\nclean energy investments, protect ratepayers from price increases, and
\neven reduce the federal budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office
\nprojects that ACES would reduce the deficit by $24 billion from 2010-19<\/a>, while S. 1733 would reduce it by $21 billion from 2010-19<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nwhich is pending in the Senate but with no action scheduled, would also
\ninvest in clean energy technologies. It would return to taxpayers three
\nquarters of the revenue generated by its “cap-and-dividend” program,
\nwhile using the other quarter for a Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund<\/a> for investments including “clean energy R&D<\/a> … and need-based, regionally-specific assistance for communities and workers transitioning to a clean energy economy.”<\/p>\n
\n(I-Conn.) are drafting a comprehensive bipartisan energy bill, expected by
\nmid-April. According to Sen. Graham<\/a>,
\nthis legislation could invest as much as 40 percent of the funds
\ngenerated from its limits on carbon pollution from utilities and
\nindustrial sources back into clean energy.<\/p>\n
\ninvestment agenda. These senators instead advocate passage of an
\nenergy-only bill that would not adequately spur investment in clean
\nenergy technologies-even though there is little hope of catching up to
\nour global competitors in the clean energy race without a strong
\ninvestment strategy.<\/p>\n
\ninclude a price signal to favor investments in low-carbon energy or any
\nrevenue-raising elements to provide seed capital to invest in the
\ntransition to a clean energy economy.<\/p>\n
\nwhich passed the Senate Energy Committee on July 16, 2009, would not
\nlimit or put a price on carbon pollution. Potential investors in clean
\nenergy technology would continue to lack certainty about the future
\nmarket for clean energy, and investments in underpriced dirty fossil
\nfuels would remain relatively attractive.<\/p>\n
\nprograms, including the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or
\n“Green Bank,” and assistance for manufacturing to become more energy
\nefficient and competitive. It would also provide financial assistance
\nto the nuclear energy industry and has a renewable electricity standard
\nthat could increase investments in wind and solar if it were enhanced.
\nYet CBO estimates that ACELA<\/a> “would increase budget deficits by about $13.5 billion over the
\n2010-2019 period.” Put simply, the clean energy programs included in
\nthis bill are not paid for.<\/p>\n
\ninvestment programs will only add to the budget deficit. One potential
\nrevenue raiser is the elimination of tax breaks for big oil companies<\/a>,
\nwhich could generate $36.5 billion over 10 years. Comprehensive energy
\nbills also create revenue from their limits on carbon pollution. Yet
\nenergy-only bills do not include such a provision or establish a price
\non carbon pollution, and would therefore have to increase the deficit
\nto pay for its investments.<\/p>\n
\ncontinue to borrow to pay for them is a high-risk proposition that
\ncould create uncertainty about these programs. And companies may shy
\naway from such investment programs if funding is uncertain or unstable.<\/p>\n
\nin clean energy technologies to keep up with our economic competitors.
\nA price on carbon pollution is an essential ingredient in this strategy
\nto level the economic playing field between dirty, old fossil fuel
\nenergy and new, cleaner efficiency and renewables. A carbon pollution
\nprice is also essential to provide the funds for an investment agenda.
\nAn energy-only bill lacks these two elements.<\/p>\n
\n… It’s putting off to another Congress what really needs to be done
\ncomprehensively. I don’t think you’ll ever have energy independence …
\nuntil you start dealing with carbon pollution and pricing carbon.”<\/p>\n
\nis unlikely to provide the investments essential to transforming of our
\neconomy or help us catch up in the clean energy technology race for the
\nfuture.<\/p>\n
\nshould include these important energy provisions, along with a
\nmechanism to raise the revenue to pay for them.<\/p>\n
\ncommercialization of clean energy technologies. CEDA would provide loan
\nguarantees, so the federal government would only need to fund the cost
\nof any potential default, rather than funding the entire cost of a
\ndirect loan or grant. This subsidy would
\nleverage private investments, and a $10 billion appropriation—the
\namount included in the Senate bill—would actually produce about $100
\nbillion in investments.<\/p>\n
\nincludes CEDA. The Senate Energy Committee passed American Clean Energy
\nLeadership Act, S. 1462, includes a slightly different version of it.<\/p>\n
\nmonthly energy bills by 20 percent or more by improving the energy
\nefficiency of their homes. It would establish a $6 billion rebate
\nprogram over the next one to two years to encourage immediate
\ninvestment in cost-effective energy efficient products and services as
\nwell as whole-home energy efficiency retrofits. The program would be
\nfacilitated and coordinated through existing state programs using
\nfederal standards and incentives as a common platform to keep program
\ncosts as low as possible. It could create thousands of construction
\njobs.<\/p>\n
\n(D-N.M.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced a
\nsimilar proposal, S. 3177.<\/p>\n
\nput hundreds of thousands of people to work conducting energy efficient
\nretrofits of commercial and multi-family residential buildings. It
\nwould rebate approximately 30 percent of the cost of installing energy
\nefficient products and\/or providing energy efficiency. The program
\nwould leverage $2 to $3 dollars of private investment for every $1 of
\nfederal investment. Every $1 billion investment would create 25,000
\njobs-many in the hard hit construction industry. And it could reduce
\nindustry energy costs by $3.3 billion annually. Sen. Jeff Merkley
\n(D-Ore.) introduced the Building Star Energy Efficiency Act<\/a>, S. 3079 on March 4, 2010.<\/p>\n
\nS. 1617, would authorize $30 billion for state-revolving loan programs
\nto assist small- and medium-sized firms in retooling, expanding, or
\nestablishing domestic clean energy manufacturing operations, and to
\nimprove energy efficiency in industrial operations. IMPACT also
\nprovides funding to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to
\nprovide technical assistance to these firms in entering the clean
\nenergy supply chain.<\/p>\n
\nincludes a version of IMPACT; IMPACT is also included as a pilot
\nprogram in S. 1462<\/a>, but there is no funding authorization level for the program in that bill.<\/p>\n
\ncould sell on the carbon market. A CAP analysis projects that this
\nwould generate a total of $65 billion between 2012-2020. These revenues
\ncould fund investments such as insulating and weather stripping homes,
\nconstructing “green” rooftops, replacing leaky windows, installing
\nefficient heating and cooling systems, and replacing inefficient
\nappliances with those that have high Energy Star ratings. This would
\nsave consumers $63 billion on their electric bills and create up to
\n137,000 jobs in 2015.<\/p>\n
\nof dirty, aging coal plants, and increase the use of cleaner power from
\nnatural gas or other cleaner sources. Such a program has not yet been
\nintroduced.<\/p>\n
\nand H.R. 1835, would create tax incentives to power heavy trucks and
\nfleet vehicles with natural gas instead of diesel or gasoline. This
\nbill would save the United States millions of barrels of oil over time.<\/p>\n
\nits efficiency and reliability. And the expansion of the grid is
\nessential to transmit electricity from wind and solar power generated
\nin the more rural or remote places to urban areas where electricity
\ndemand is highest. S. 1462<\/a> would strengthen “the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s role in
\nsiting interstate electric transmission facilities.” This includes the
\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission’s coordination of regional
\nplanning and back stop authority for federal action if states fail to
\nplan and construct essential transmission lines, and it would “ensure
\njust and reasonable allocation of the cost of high-priority national
\ntransmission projects.”<\/p>\n