My commentary in last year’s July-August issue discussed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also called the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill had made it through the House of Representatives and had just been sent to the Senate. I questioned whether that bill would clear the Senate.
Last year I was convinced that if the Waxman-Markey bill didn’t get the Senate’s approval that some other bill—putting a price on carbon emissions through cap and trade or some sort of carbon tax—eventually would pass. I’m glad I didn’t predict when that bill would pass.
Lawmakers are not much closer to creating the comprehensive climate and energy bill the industry needs. Both houses of Congress must approve a bill to pass energy legislation.
The House of Representatives cast its vote affirming the climate and energy bill in late June 2009, but Congress members say the bill does not have enough support to clear the Senate. Work that Waxman-Markey proponents expended getting the House to pass the bill was probably a waste. Likely, they must start from scratch next year with a new Congress that most expect will not be inclined to pass a bill that puts a price a carbon emissions.
The lack of support for the current Senate legislation prompted Democratic senators to craft on July 22 a new bill that does not include limits on carbon emissions. In addition, it doesn’t include a renewable electricity standard.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the Senate would not take up a limit on global warming pollution before the August recess. Democrats said they would focus the bill instead on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and improving energy efficiency.
Reid said that Democrats might re-address carbon legislation with another energy bill in September. I’m not holding my breath.
Duke Energy President, Chairman and CEO James E. Rogers said that without a cap on carbon emissions, power companies will switch to natural gas while waiting for a U.S. carbon policy. He warned that the country cannot meet its long-term climate goals by shifting to another fossil fuel that has a significant carbon footprint. I agree.
U.S. electric utilities have waited several years for clear, Congressional direction to proceed with long-term growth plans and investments. Without a decision, they are severely handicapped when trying to determine how to meet growing load demands. While the economic downturn has given them a little reprieve from making tough capacity decisions, time is running out.
There’s also the possibility that if legislation isn’t passed, the Environmental Protection Agency will create the rules, and I haven’t heard anyone say that’s a good idea.
Health care and banking reform have taken center stage in Washington, D.C., and they have caused casualties among their Democratic supporters. Democrats don’t seem to be ready to risk association with another bill so many strongly oppose and see as a job-killing energy tax.
A consensus in Congress or with the American public regarding whether climate change is a threat or not has never been reached. Lawmakers must, however, find common ground somewhere so they can set clear rules for the electric utility industry, and they need to do it soon. Unfortunately, I don’t think 2010 will be the year.
Like I’ve said many tims when rooting for the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series, there’s always next year. (My husband has been a Cubs fan for years and convinced me that I should be one, too. Choosing a baseball team that hasn’t won a World Series in a century is not the smartest decision if you like winning.)
Teresa Hansen, editor in chief