Energy Compromise A Great Step Forward

The American Clean Energy and Security Act unveiled this week is not perfect, but it’s a smart step toward reducing carbon emissions without destroying American industry and jobs.

Sponsored by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., the bill establishes a strong carbon cap that such groups as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Southern Appalachian Law Center have long sought. Additionally, it has garnered support from the power companies that burn coal to generate electricity, including Dominion Resources, American Electric Power and Duke Energy.

The power companies recognize that the Waxman-Markey bill gives them time to gradually reduce carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that can be regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The bill also promotes renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal; sets low carbon fuel standards for cars; and establishes banking and borrowing of carbon allowances for future years.

Still, it has its opponents, who suggest that Americans will see increased power bills ranging from $1,600 to $3,100 a year.

The obvious truth: Energy costs will increase due to new environmental safeguards in the bill, but no one truly knows by how much.

Yet another truth: Congress must act or the EPA will, and the agency cannot take economics into the equation. That’s why business, after dragging its feet and denying for decades that global warming exists, is getting on board. Industry might not welcome a carbon cap, but some leaders fear an EPA regulation would be even more restrictive.

We definitely want more clarity on the potential costs, but a carbon-cap-and-trade plan is a good way to begin reducing carbon emissions. A similar plan has virtually eliminated the acid rain problems once attributed to American coal-fired power plants. Scrubbers at those plants now remove about 90 percent of the compounds that turn into sulfuric acid or nitric acid when mixed with precipitation.

We also believe this bill is a good bridging mechanism to the future: It will reduce carbon emissions from power plants until carbon sequestration technology is perfected, a goal that is still several years away. Coal is the cheapest, most-plentiful energy resource we have, and finding ways to use it cleanly is key to a successful future energy policy, particularly because half the power generated in the U.S. is generated by burning coal.

U.S. Rep. Phil Roe, a Republican who represents Tennessee’s 1st District, is not a fan of the cap-and-trade policy. (He calls it “cap and tax.”) He fears the plan will hurt American manufacturers and force them to cut jobs, go out of business or move overseas. Eastman Chemical Co. will be at a distinct disadvantage to Chinese companies that make plastics and chemicals, but do not have to follow the same environmental standards as the Kingsport, Tenn.-based company, Roe said.

Too many people are assuming “something awful is going to happen” if carbon emissions are not reduced, Roe said; and he claimed increased levels of carbon have caused increased forest growth in Brazil.

We don’t want to see Eastman lose its competitiveness, lay off more employees nor have additional pay cuts. We recognize that this recession has hurt everyone.

We also recognize that the Waxman-Markey bill is not perfect. Although it aims to reduce pollutants 83 percent by 2050, no one can agree on what it will cost consumers. As Roe said Thursday, some business leaders are accepting it because they see it as the lesser of two evils. “Are you going to cut off one leg or two legs?” Roe asked.

But there is no denying that it is a good first step – particularly considering the laudable feat of getting environmental groups and power companies on the same side, even if they were dragged there.

Both sides give that credit to U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents Virginia’s 9th District and serves as a senior member of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee. He chaired a subcommittee that focused on this bill in 27 days of hearings. This week, the Environmental Defense Fund and the presidents of three major power companies said Boucher brought common sense to the plan.

Boucher said his aim was to reach significant environmental benefits without seriously harming business. “It was a delicate balance, but I am proud of what we have achieved,” he said.

The Waxman-Markey bill is a plan the Congress should accept. The measure appropriately encourages alternative fuels and burning coal more cleanly, while reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

Opponents will aim to scare the public with overblown cost estimates, while greenies will downplay what citizens might pay or affects on industry.

So as the bill moves through Congress, we urge clarity in the rhetoric over the costs and help for companies that will need it.