Mica, Crenshaw and Stearns Vote Against American Clean Energy and Security Act

[BridgeTroll]

Both parties have been bought and paid for,

Its just a bumper sticker faye...

So who should be allowed to contribute to the political process faye? 

[FayeforCure]

BT, you already know the answer: Publicly financed campaigns with equal time in the form of PSA type messages on tv.

[FayeforCure]

Here clear evidence that the Dems are also beholden to  Big Oil, Coal and major Energy Industries:

This month, another milestone was reached in the passage of climate legislation. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) voted in favor of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Unfortunately, the bill still fails to hold polluters accountable and falls short of empowering locally controlled sustainable energy.

And we think we know why - In addition to the $100 million lobbying campaign undertaken by dirty energy groups to influence climate legislation, recent research by Public Citizen and our allies have found that energy industry officials have also dominated witness tables at hearings on climate legislation.

Of the 88 witness that gave testimony on climate issues this year 33 were energy industry executives. A mere two witness advocated for consumers protections.

Big Energy has had the Senate's ear for too long! Urge your senators to stand up to polluter influence and support bolder provisions that let not just their constituents, but world leaders, know that the U.S. is serious about addressing climate change.

As we approach the final weeks leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, it is critical that the U.S. send a clear signal that we are moving toward a transformative clean energy and climate bill.

Let your senators know that their constituents and the world are watching. The current bill still contains billions of dollars worth of free giveaways to the coal and nuclear industries, and fails to include real incentives to promote locally-owned, small scale wind and solar. We need a strong bill that achieves carbon emissions reductions mandated by leading climate scientists, establishes better incentives for renewables and energy efficiency, and limits that amount of free allowances given to polluters.

Thanks for all you do,

Tyson Slocum
Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program

P.S.: Next month, Public Citizen is launching a new Climate and Energy Blog! Got a great idea for a blog post? Want to brand our blog? Submit ideas here.

Send a message to your Senators here:

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=28091

[JMac]

I don't want my Rep or Senators voting for "cap and tax".

[FayeforCure]

Aha rolling out that perpetual tax boogeyman.

To heck with reducing our dependence on Oil, and supporting alternative energy sources such as wind and energy. It's that short term thinking that has caused the US to lag behind other advanced nations.

Let's stop the short-sightedness that is holding up the creation of high-paying green jobs that we so desperately need. Sorry to burst your tax fear bubble:

In their faux search for more information about the Clean Energy Jobs Act, opponents of the bill aren’t seeing its myriad benefits. Now that the Senate Environment Committee has passed the Clean Energy Jobs Act, perhaps other senators will take a look.

Earlier this week we outlined six benefits of the bill and explained why the bill should be passed by the committee. Here are nine more benefits as the legislation moves forward.

7. The Clean Energy Jobs Act is an “all of the above” bill

Many public officials have said they favor global warming solutions that include “all of the above” energy sources. In September Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) endorsed the “’all-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy,” that includes “development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements.”

The Clean Energy Jobs Act embraces this notion. Its meaningful, declining limit on carbon pollution would, in effect, establish a price on this pollution. The bill includes provisions to protect ratepayers from electricity price spikes, and it would generate revenues from polluters that could be used for clean-energy initiatives. The price would level the playing field between currently underpriced, cheaper electricity generated from dirty, old coal-fired power plants and newer, cleaner sources of electricityâ€"regardless of whether these cleaner sources come from renewables, nuclear, natural gas, cleaner use of coal, or other technologies.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act also has other provisions that would spur investments in a number of clean-energy technologies. These include:

Incentives for wind, solar, and other renewable sources, and energy efficiency (Section 161 to Section 164).

Worker training and waste recycling programs for nuclear power (Section 131 to Section 133).

Ten years of incentives for coal-fired power plants to employ carbon capture-and-storage technology to reduce emissions (Sections 125 and 181).

Economic incentives for utilities that switch to cleaner natural gas (Sections 181, 182, 773).

A “Clean Vehicle Technology Fund” to help our auto manufacturers produce the low-emissions vehicles of the future (Section 201).

8. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will reduce electricity bills

The EPA’s recent comprehensive analysis of S.1733 predicts that with or without the climate bill, “household consumption [of energy] will continue to grow” and that clean-energy legislation would only slow this growth by about one or two-tenths of a percent on average by 2030, with substantial net gains in the short run, and very modest costs spread out in the future.

Consumers are protected in the bill by the allocation of 30 percent of the revenues from the pollution reduction program to regulated local electric distribution companies, which are required to use the money to “protect consumers from electricity price increases” (Section 772).

Every large emitter of greenhouse gas pollution must have a permit for every ton of pollution. In the early years of the program some of the allowances are given to electric utilities for free, who must then return the value of these allowances to their ratepayers. Heating oil, propane, and regulated gas distribution companies will also receive some free allowances to protect their consumers against increases in heating costs.

Here are a few different predictions for what consumers might save under the efficiency and consumer protection provisions in S. 1733:

The EPA’s analysis of the House version of the bill found that it would cause no increase in energy prices for the next 20 years, and that average household energy costs would actually decrease by 2 to 7 percent over the next 10 years due to increased energy efficiency.
Using figures from the EPA and EIA modeling, the Environmental Defense Fund found that impacts on household utility bills in 2030 would range from a $5.60 per-month savings to a $2.80 per-month increase.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimated that savings from short- and long-term efficiency measures in the House version of the bill could save American consumers even moreâ€"as much as $750 per household per year by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030. Since the Senate Environment Committee does not have jurisdiction over many efficiency programs, such provisions should be part of the energy bill that the entire Senate will debate.

9. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will train workers for the clean-energy jobs of the future

Growing new industries for clean technologies like advanced nuclear plants, renewables, and energy efficiency will require workers with the skills to design, build, and maintain this new infrastructure. The Clean Energy Jobs Act establishes two nationwide worker assistance and job training programs: one for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and another specific for nuclear industry worker training. These programs will help American workers transition from outdated, inefficient industries to new industries that produce or deploy the clean-energy technologies of the future, and they would help ensure that our economy can remain competitive in the race for clean energy markets.

10. The Clean Energy Jobs Act would protect the most vulnerable people

The bill distributes a significant portion of allowances from the pollution reduction programâ€"15 percent initially, rising to 18.5 percent by 2029â€"to pay for direct rebates to low-income households. This would ensure that these households do not suffer from increases in energy prices or other goods due to global warming pollution clean-up costs.

The Congressional Budget Office’s most recent analysis of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act predicted that the combined effect of consumer protection measures in the bill would actually result in an average net income gain of about $125 per year per household for the least well off 20 percent of Americans.

11. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will drive competition and innovation

In addition to finally putting clean-energy technologies on even footing with dirty sources of energy, the bill actually creates incentives for innovation, knowledge sharing, and the transferring of clean-energy technologies from laboratories to assembly lines. It allocates up to 4 percent of allowances competitively to “energy innovation hubs,” where companies, knowledge institutions, scientists, entrepreneurs, and government laboratories can collaborate to develop and commercialize new clean-energy technologies, manufacturing processes, and business models.

A recent study by CAP shows how the regional innovation clusters that this policy would help foster would “create jobs, create businesses and, of course, stimulate long-term economic growth.”

12. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will give a much-needed boost to our manufacturing sector

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are very sensitive to the impact that pollution reduction efforts may have on energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries. The Clean Energy Jobs Act therefore provides assistance to such industries, including steel, glass, paper, cement, and chemical companies. The bill would allocate 15 percent of allowance revenue in 2014 and 2015â€"and decline after until 2050â€"to help manufacturers retool and invest in more efficient process and equipment.

The bill would also help American auto plants retool to manufacture the super-efficient cars of the future by providing 4 percent of allowances for clean-vehicle technologies. Finally, allowances for the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program and “clean energy innovation hubs” will help U.S. manufacturers produce clean-energy and energy efficiency components more efficiently, cheaply, and quickly.

If other countries do not do their part to help avert dangerous global climate change, an additional border measure in the bill that is “consistent with international obligations” will protect against “carbon leakage”â€"or making pollution reductions in the United States only to see increases in other countriesâ€"and ensure that clean-energy manufacturing jobs stay in the United States.

13. The Clean Energy Jobs Act has public support

Many recent polls show that Americans continue to view climate change as a serious threat, and they support clean-energy legislation. Here are just a few examples:

Support for clean-energy legislation is strong, especially in critical swing districts. The Pew Environment Group commissioned a just-released poll of likely voters in swing districts in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. The poll, by the opinion research firm the Mellman Group, found that over 70 percent of voters in all four states believe "global warming is either happening now, or will happen.” Between 68 and 77 percent of these swing district voters supported the United States taking action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses, while only 15 to 23 percent were opposed.

The same Mellman Poll found that Independents in swing districts also overwhelmingly support congressional action to reduce pollution by margins of +20 percent or more in Florida, New Mexico, and Ohio, and by a margin of +53 percent in Virginia.
The McCain for President polling firm of Public Opinion Strategies conducted a poll of Missouri voters with Mellman for Pew and found that “over two-thirds [of likely voters in Missouri] support the combined proposal to reduce emissions and require clean energy sources…a plurality believe that reducing global warming will create new jobs.”

A mid-October CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that 60 percent of Americans supported a “cap-and-trade” program that “would limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that companies could produce in their factories or power plants”, while only 37 percent opposed it.

A recent Washington Post poll found that Americans by a 2-to-1 margin support efforts by President Barack Obama and Congress to enact clean-energy jobs legislation.

A September poll of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 from the Benenson Strategy Group, a public opinion firm, showed support for clean-energy jobs legislation is even stronger among youth, with 75 percent of young Americans in favor of the Clean Energy Jobs Act, and only 15 percent opposed. Support for the bill among youth runs across party lines, with young Republicans 58 percent in favor, young Independents 78 percent in favor, and young Democrats 87 percent in favor.

14. Business leaders want clean-energy reform

Many American businesses leaders are advocating for comprehensive energy legislation that includes a declining limit on global warming pollution. They understand that a clean-energy economy will help their businesses grow, and they are putting their money where their mouth is.

In an open letter signed by 181 global financial institutions representing $13 trillion in capital (equivalent to nearly one-fifth of the globe’s annual gross domestic product), entrepreneurs and investors implored world leaders to “reach a strong post-2012 climate change agreement” that sets “a global target for emission reductions of 50-85 percent by 2050.” The Clean Energy Jobs Act sets a target of 83 percent reduction by 2050.

Major businesses such as Apple, PG&E, Exelon, and PNM Resources have quit the Chamber of Commerce over its staunch opposition to clean-energy legislation. Other major chamber members such as Nike, Duke Energy Corporation, and Cisco Systems have publicly supported reform and rejected the chamber’s views. Meanwhile, Fortune 500 companies including BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, General Motors, Siemens, Shell, and General Electric formed the United States Climate Action Partnership, calling for immediate action to reduce global warming pollution. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership plan forms the basis of the Clean Energy Jobs Act.

15. Inaction will harm the economy

Thousands of scientists, economists, and business understand that our unsustainable energy system threatens our economy, public health, and environment. A recent poll of 144 economists who have published about climate change in the top 25 economics journals found that 94 percent favor the United States joining an international climate agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 92 percent wanted a cap-and-trade system to establish a price on carbon, and 84 percent agreed that global warming’s effects “create significant risks” to the economy.

In addition to producing global warming pollution, the combustion of fossil fuels exacts huge public health and economic costs. A recent exhaustive analysis by the National Academy of Sciences found that an average of 54 Americans die every day due to breathing air made dirty from fossil fuel pollution. This hidden impact costs $120 billion per year.

On top of the health costs, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that failing to deal with climate change will cost our economy an average of $27 million to $375 million every day from now until 2050. These figures are based on an ongoing interagency effort by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation to accurately value the economic cost of carbon pollution, but the report warns that these estimate are “very likely to be underestimations.”

A report authored by economists at Tufts and Cambridge Universities and released by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the increased hurricanes, droughts, floods, infrastructure damage, and higher heating and cooling bills due to global warming will cost Americans an average of $1.3 billion per day by 2050â€"$506 billion annually, or 1.5 percent of GDPâ€"if we do not reform our energy system and slash global warming pollution.

None of these numbers take into account the irreversible climate change-driven damage to our nation’s natural heritageâ€"our glaciers, rivers, wetlands, and arboreal and ocean ecosystems. The National Resources Defense Council suggests that putting a price tag on these difficult-to-value ecological impacts would cause the price tag for climate disasters to double.

Between the $120 billion of hidden annual health costs that are predicted to increase until 2050, the $350 billion per year sent abroad to buy foreign oil, and the $506 billion necessary to deal with weather, infrastructure, and increased energy demand, doing nothing to solve our energy problems today means dumping at least a $2.6 billion daily bill on the next generation by 2050 and beyond.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy and Sean Pool is Special Assistant for Energy Policy at American Progress.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/11/reasons_ceja2.html

[JMac]

I support drilling for oil and natural gas here in the United States.  We should also clear the way for many more nuclear power plants.  I don't believe anyone that says taxing Utilities and making them use wind and solar will reduce my bills.

[FayeforCure]

I support drilling for oil and natural gas here in the United States.  We should also clear the way for many more nuclear power plants.  I don't believe anyone that says taxing Utilities and making them use wind and solar will reduce my bills.

Based on what,.......your gut feeling?

Sad to see the US so behind:

Spain’s variable wind and stable electricity networks

16 Nov, 2009 11:58 pm
Enlarge text  Reduce text size  Send this article
One of the frequent criticisms of wind energy is that national distribution systems (‘the grid’) cannot cope with large number of turbines because of the variability and unpredictability of their output. Grids need to match supply and demand precisely, the critics say, and because wind varies so much it causes huge problems. Recent data from two meteorologically unusual days in Spain â€" the world leader in the management of renewable energy supplies â€" shows this assertion is almost certainly false.


During part of 8 November, Spain saw over 50% of its electricity come from turbines as an Atlantic depression swept over the country’s wind parks. (They are so big that no one seems to call them ‘farms’.) Unlike similar times in November 2008, when Spanish turbines were disconnected because the grid had an excess of electricity, the system accepted and used all the wind power that was offered to it.


A very different event in January of this year saw unexpectedly high winds shut down most of the country’s turbines with little warning. The grid coped with this untoward incident as well. These two events show that a well run transmission system can cope with extreme and unexpected events even with a large fraction of power provided by wind.


Over the course of this year Spain will generate about 14% of its total electricity from wind and this number is likely to rise to the high twenties by 2020. Spain is showing the rest of the world that these figures are not incompatible with grid stability. Although wind is ‘variable’, ‘intermittent’ and ‘unpredictable’, a well functioning grid system can still use wind to help stabilise electricity costs, reduce carbon emissions and improve energy security.


53% from wind


At some periods on the night of 8/9 November, wind provided 53% of Spain’s need for electricity. This was a new record for the Spanish system. As the country continues to install thousands of new wind turbines a year, this record will not stand for long.

Although Denmark has had similar percentages of its electricity provided by wind, the Spanish numbers are particularly significant. As its electricity transmission company, Red Eléctrica de España or REE, reminds us, the country is unusually isolated from international interconnections. It is ‘a peninsula electrically speaking, with weak electrical interconnections with the European Union’.[1] A country with limited capacity to import or export power has more issues accommodating large amounts of wind power. Denmark has international connections to cover 50% of its electricity while Spain has less than a tenth this amount. (The UK also scores extremely poorly on this dimension.) Spain is able to manage the integration of wind power into its grid primarily because it has reasonable amounts of hydro-electricity and pumped storage.[2] Hydro-electricity can be used when winds are less than expected and pumped storage can assist both when wind is unexpectedly high or unexpectedly low.

One of the main criticisms levelled at wind is that its power is so unpredictable that huge amounts of fossil fuel generating capacity needs to be kept ready to replace it at a moment’s notice. Those antagonistic to wind believe that the carbon cost of keeping power stations in a state of what the industry calls ‘spinning reserve’ is enormous. Power stations, they say, are burning fuel so that they can instantaneously start producing electricity if and when the wind drops.

But is wind so variable that power stations need to provide immediate backup? The utterly superb REE web site provides easy-to-use data to test this theory. I’ve used this data to try to demonstrate that wind production was remarkably consistent during the peak day of 8 November.[3] Not only is wind speed largely predictable with good meteorology, but REE data shows that even in the windy days of early November, the amount of electricity generated only varied gradually.

During this 24-hour period the total generated varied from about 9.3 gigawatts (9,300 megawatts) at the start, to a peak of around 11.5 gigawatts at about 14.30 in the afternoon. For most of the day, the wind output was very stable around 10 gigawatts. (The wind output estimate is provided every ten minutes on the REE website.) The mean percentage variation from one reading to the next was 0.72%. On only three occasions out of 143 observations did the output vary more than 2% between two readings.

http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=3143

[Ocklawaha]

BT, you already know the answer: Publicly financed campaigns with equal time in the form of PSA type messages on tv.

Why Faye? It's all touchy feel good fuzzy, but lets say a new candidate is running against Hitler or Stalin?  You still want your tax dollars to fund THEIR campaign?  What if some guy is in the lead and he is all about making things harder for the handicapped?  Your telling me as a mom, you are not going to find someone, Walgreen's, AMA, SOMEONE, who will donate the funds to dump the guy?
I would.

OCKLAWAHA

[JMac]

Based on what,.......your gut feeling?

Based on the fact that Obama is forecasting to raise close to a trillion dollars in eight years.  That money will come from me and you, sister, and it will ensure the continuation of this terrible recession.

[BridgeTroll]

BT, you already know the answer: Publicly financed campaigns with equal time in the form of PSA type messages on tv.


Why Faye? It's all touchy feel good fuzzy, but lets say a new candidate is running against Hitler or Stalin?  You still want your tax dollars to fund THEIR campaign?  What if some guy is in the lead and he is all about making things harder for the handicapped?  Your telling me as a mom, you are not going to find someone, Walgreen's, AMA, SOMEONE, who will donate the funds to dump the guy?
I would.

Faye... is there ANYTHING that the government shouldnt pay for?

So everyone gets equal time?  Or only who the government decides to actually finance.  Suppose some lunatic starts the BridgeTroll party... does that guy get the same cash for on air ads as Faye and Mica?  How about the Nazis?  Same time?