Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘house energy and commerce committee’

Year in Review: The Little Climate Bill That Couldn’t

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 8, 2010 |

EDITOR’S NOTE: At this rate, we may actually finish reviewing the year in blog 2009 by the end of January 2010– just how we wanted to start the year!!  But… stuff keeps happening…. and we can’t blog! Or we have to blog about the important, breaking news stuff!  So, sorry for dragging this out, but we hope you’re having fun reminiscing as much as we are blogging about it.

5. The Little Climate Bill That Couldn’t

We had high hopes coming into 2009.  Congressmen Waxman and Markey were hard at work on draft legislation that they promised would meet scientific standards on climate change.  They had even collected signatures from the majority of their caucus on principles that they would build off of. And those principles were pretty good.  So was Obama’s proposed budget, which showed they had revenue plans starting in 2012 of a 100% auction of CO2 credits- a 100% auction being the method that most agree brings quicker pollution reductions and is also, according to the EPA, the least regressive method of implementation.  Hey, anything that hurts poor people the least is what we want to do, right?

WRONG. Clearly, you think differently than the majority of the US Congress.

Then Waxman and Markey released their draft legislation – our reaction was not pretty. Texas Congressmen had been complicit in weakening the bill away from the standards of the original principles.

Good Points:

  • AMAZING building code and appliance standards for energy efficiency
  • Good long term (2050) and short term (2020) goal for carbon reduction (still needed to be improved to what science calls for- but a good start)
  • Had a renewable energy mandate and an efficiency mandate: we’d get 20% of our power from renewables by 2020 and increase energy efficiency by an additional 10%.

Bad points

  • Well… all of those goals could be bigger.
  • No language on how the carbon credits would be auctioned or allocated.  Nada. Left to be decided later. Like a “scene missing” slide in a Nine Inch Nails video that gets crazier and scarier as time goes on….

And then the hearings on the bill started.  In typical fashion, climate denier troglodytes like Texas’ own Joe Barton tried to slow down the proceedings– by insisting that the entire bill and its amendments be read aloud before the committee.  Because of this unprecedented demand, the House Energy and Commerce Committee simply hired a speedreader.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_SB7g_Yb-0]

If only that had been the extent of the funny business with the bill… but both behind closed doors and by amendment in the committee, the climate bill got gutted.  First, special giveaways to the nuclear industry. Then to the coal industry. Then decreasing the renewables and efficiency goals by almost half.  Then offsets language that guaranteed that polluters would be able to continue to pollute above the cap– meaning in a bill whose primary purpose is to make sure we curb pollution so we don’t fry the planet, our emissions might actually GO UP, not down. And the bill passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, its largest hurdle, but by then it had been incredibly compromised.  Our immediate reaction was:  follow the money (ad this remains the single best explanation of what happened to the climate bill to date, imho– it also helps that I wrote it).

But they weren’t done with the gutting of the bill yet…

Then special giveaways to the agribusiness industry. And finally, the coup de grace, they stripped the EPA of their authority to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act.

During all of this, we were trying our best to stand up for ordinary Texans against these corporate interests– you may have seen us at the King William Parade in San Antonio, telling San Antonio’s Congressman Gonzalez, “Sorry Charlie, Bailouts Aren’t Green.”  I think aside from crashing the Energy Citizens Rally this was the most fun I had all year.

We were, to say the least, conflicted.  We REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted a climate bill.  But what we got was a climate disaster.  The Waxman-Markey Bill, co-authored by your special interest friends, passed on June 28.  Ugh.  It’s like sending out a birth announcement of a really, really ugly baby.  Or opening a beautifully wrapped present you thought was the perfect gift but finding instead the world’s ugliest Christmas sweater.  Disappointment? That’s not strong enough.  To use the parlance of our day: #EPIC FAIL.

The Senate side hasn’t fared much better.  Despite a decent framework from Senators Kerry and Boxer (it really needs to be improved, but it could be worse) passing through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (partisan knuckledraggers, led by Denier-in-Chief James Inhofe, actually boycotted the hearings and the vote), it has yet to be worked on by the Senate Finance Committee (who, you may have heard, was REALLY busy working on some bill having to do with health care.  It didn’t get much media coverage, so you may have missed it. </sarcasm>)

Meanwhile, others felt that both the Boxer bill and the Waxman-Markey bill were DOA in the Senate, so a tri-partisan group of Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA- look! I got my name on TWO climate bills this Congress!), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have said they would develop their own climate bill.  No word yet on their framework (a draft could come any day now), but, unfortunately signs are pointing to “not good”.  It seems the only thing the three of them can really agree on is more pork for nuclear.

However, the EPA in December issued an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the next step in actually regulating them, as they were ordered to do in 2007’s Massachusetts v EPA Supreme Court case.  So a year that began on a hopeful note went bad, then worse…. but ended with a little ray of sunshine.  Here’s to a New Year’s Resolution of ACTUALLY passing a climate and clean energy bill that can ACTUALLY fight climate change and create more clean energy. And just like that New Year’s Res to lose 10 pounds, this year we REALLY mean it!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

The Influence of Energy Industry Contributions

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2009 |

US_House_CommitteeLast week we saw the Waxman Markey bill go to the Energy and Commerce committee. Watching the markup process increased my interest in the role special interest money plays in the political process.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is responsible for oversight in legislation concerning: telecommunications, energy, international commerce, public health, consumer protection and much more. The Energy Department, Health and Human Services, the Transportation Department to the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and Federal Communications Commission all fall under this committee’s jurisdiction.

Being that this is the committee that was given the responsibility of approving the Waxman Markey bill (the legislation that will determine our future energy policy); I was particularly interested in the amount of influence the energy industry had on shaping these positions of its members. The only way I could actually come close to measuring this is by looking at how much energy companies contribute to these candidates and how much their votes reflect the contributions they receive. As a control for this highly informal quasi-experiment I compared the contributions Energy and Commerce Committee members received from the energy industry the amount of contributions members of the Ways and Means Committee (which deals with taxation and welfare) received from the same industries. I limited this to congressmen who received $10,000 or more in contributions from energy companies during the 2008 election cycle.

I found that in the 65.52% of energy and commerce committee members received energy contributions above $10,000, while 58.53% of Ways and Means members received contributions above $10,000, during the 2008 campaign season. On average Energy and Commerce members received $53,972, while Ways and Means members only received $35,986, on average. The biggest recipients of both parties on the Energy and Commerce Committee got substantially more than their counterparts on Ways and Means Committee. In fact the biggest recipient on Energy and Commerce got $267,559 more than the largest recipient in Ways and Means. The Democrats in both committees received fewer contributions from these industries than the republicans, but the biggest recipient among Energy and Commerce Democrats, Louisiana’s Charlie Melancon, received $40,176 more than Charles Rangel the biggest Democrat recipient on the Ways and Means committee. It should be noted that a bigger percentage of Republicans on both committees received contributions above $10,000 in Energy Contributions. 100% of Republicans on Energy and Commerce received $10,000 or more while only 44% of Democrats did. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Everyone Weighing in on Climate Bill

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 22, 2009 |

Let the news storm begin.  For those thirsting for more information on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a few recommendations:

Watch Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, weigh in on Democracy Now! — Environmental Groups See Divide over Landmark Climate, Energy Bill Weakened by Industry Lobbying

Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current takes Charlie Gonzalez to task for his efforts to weaken ACES (look for a cameo quote from our very own Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director here at the Texas office — Gonzalez bombs climate change bill

The Washington Post’s business column op-ed: Climate-Change Bill Hits Some of the Right Notes but Botches the Refrain

The Economist breaks down the Handouts and loopholes

And to close out, words from the President:

I commend Chairman Waxman and the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for a successful effort to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill out of their committee today. We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America. The bill is historic for what it achieves, providing clean energy incentives that encourage innovation while recognizing the concerns of sensitive industries and regions in this country. And this achievement is all the more historic for bringing together many who have in the past opposed a common effort, from labor unions to corporate CEOs, and environmentalists to energy companies. I applaud the committee for its action and look forward to signing comprehensive legislation.

Read Full Post »

San Antonio Rep. Charlie Gonzalez Wants CPS to Get a Free Ride

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 24, 2009 |

According to a Bloomberg article this morning, San Antonio Representative Charlie Gonzalez has joined

a group of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee (who) want to give utilities free permits for all their existing carbon emissions, according to people familiar with a plan sent to the committee’s chairman.

The article continues:

Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia sent the four-page list of recommendations to Henry Waxman, the committee’s chairman and the author of draft climate-change legislation that some of his fellow Democrats are seeking to temper, said the people, who declined to be identified before the plan is made public. Courtney Lamie, Boucher’s spokeswoman, didn’t respond to e-mail and phone messages.

Waxman’s measure would establish a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits designed to cut carbon dioxide 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. He needs to win the support of Boucher and the other Democrats pushing for changes in his plan because no Republicans are likely to vote for it, Representative Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, said yesterday.

“It’s all about the consumer,” said Representative Charles Gonzalez of Texas, whose San Antonio-area district has oil and gas operations. “It’s also the economic interests of a member’s district or region.”

Charlie Gonzalez just doesn’t have his facts straight on this one.  If you’re really concerned about consumers, giving away pollution credits for free is about the worst way you can write this bill.  Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions.  There is a right and a very wrong way to write a good climate change bill, and Charlie is supporting the wrong way.

EPA’s most recent analysis say that giving away pollution credits is “highly regressive”, meaning it hurts low-income families the most.  At best, this is a bailout and a free ride for the polluters.  At worst it will create windfall profits for huge energy companies at the expense of every lower and middle income family in Texas.  However, an auction fixes these problems.  EPA continues:

“Assuming that the bulk of the revenues from the program are returned to households, the cap-and-trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers. . . . Returning the revenues in this fashion could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program“

A good climate change bill will create billions of dollars of revenue by charging large polluters for the dangerous pollutants they’ve been emitting for decades.  This money could then be returned to taxpayers, particularly low-income households, to protect them from any price increases that energy industries may try to pass through to consumers.  Another portion of the money could also be used to pursue aggressive energy efficiency programs, so that citizens can save even more money by using less electricity.  Every dollar spent on energy efficiency will then also help reinvigorate local economy by putting people back to work doing energy audits and retrofitting inefficient homes.

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez needs to hear that what consumers really need is energy efficiency, renewable energy, lower electric bills and less pollution — not more industry giveaways.  So far, it looks like he’s only heard from the lobbyists for the big polluters.  We’ve heard that  Congressman Gonzalez will cast a deciding vote on whether Texans will be given the tools to forge a new, green economy, or left unprotected from the worst effects of extreme weather and high energy prices.

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez is the swing vote on this issue.  Please pick up the phone and call him.  The phone number for his DC office is (202) 225-3236 and his office in San Antonio is (210) 472-6195.  You can also email his office from his website

Read Full Post »