Switchboard, from NRDC › Pete Altman's Blog

The American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES) Creates More American Jobs and Saves Americans Money

2009-07-01T15:18:18Z

By passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), or H.R. 2454, the U.S. House of Representatives set the U.S. on a course to create millions of new clean energy jobs and save consumers money on their electric and transportation bills. I blogged previously on our findings regarding jobs, electricity bills and transportation bills. As the white paper that pulls it all together explains:

Combined with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), ACES will help spur $150 billion in clean energy investments, which will create 1.7 million good-paying jobs throughout the United States.
Clean energy investments also create 5.5 times as many jobs accessible to workers with few educational credentials and little work experience, compared to fossil-fuel investments - 871,000 such jobs.
The average American household will save $6 per month on electricity bills under ACES. These modest savings are due to the bill's investments in and incentives for energy efficiency improvements, and also to the returning of 30% of allowance value back to consumers via regulated electric local distribution companies (LDCs.)
ACES works with other clean energy policies to cut household transportation bills $14 per month. ACES allocates funding to produce the next generation of clean, fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States, which will complement the clean vehicle performance standards adopted by the Obama Administration. As a result, the American on-road fleet will go about 25% further on a gallon of gas over the next decade, and by 2020 Americans will drive more efficient vehicles and have lower household transportation costs.

By harnessing market forces to create a better energy policy, the American Clean Energy and Security Act will create new jobs and save Americans money on their electric and transportation bills.

ACES Puts US and World On Safer Temperature Path

2009-06-26T19:16:01Z

Duke University just released an analysis of the impact that ACES will have on global temperature, factoring in the impact that US leadership will have on the rest of the world. As many recognize, the only way to get serious global efforts to cut emissions moving is for the US to make clear its own commitment.

The Duke study concludes that ACES can help drive a global policy that would stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million and limit global temperatures increases to less than 2 degrees above 1990 levels.

What will that do as far as global warming impacts go? Here's a synopsis of the escalating impacts of global warming, based on IPCC reports. You can see for yourself what global warming effects the ACES bill will help us avoid:

The bullets ACES will help us dodge: global GDP losses of up to 5%; extinction of 40% or more of the world's species; decline of global food production; and so on.

Amidst all the posts regarding the economic benefits of the ACES bill, its worth remembering that it will put us on track to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

ACES Will Help Create More Jobs and Opportunities for Low-Income Families

2009-06-26T16:26:19Z

The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help spur $150 billion in clean energy investments, which will create 1.7 million good-paying jobs throughout the United States.

Clean energy jobs are labor intensive, and clean energy investments create more jobs across all skill and education levels than comparable investments in fossil-fuel energy sources.

Clean energy investments create 3.2 times as many jobs as fossil-fuel investments overall. Among workers with few educational credentials and little work experience, clean energy investments create 5.5 times as many jobs as fossil-fuel investments. Furthermore, 75% of those clean energy jobs provide opportunities for advancement and higher salaries, enabling workers to lift their families out of poverty.

How would this job creation, and new opportunities for low-income families work out state-by-state? Based on recent reports by the Political Economy Research Institute, we mapped out job creation figures for total jobs created as well as the number of those jobs that are accessible to workers with low educational credentials or few jobs skills. On the map below, total job creation figures are in black, the low credential job figures are in white.

Total US job creation: 1,713,500 jobs. Of those, 871,000 would be accessible to those with low educational credentials and/or few job skills.

Sources:

"The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" downloadable from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/clean_energy.html. "Green Prosperity: How Clean Energy Policies Can Fight Poverty and Raise Living Standards in the United States" downloadable from http://www.nrdc.org/energy/greenjobs/.

NRDC commissioned PERI to develop state-level figures for low-credential jobs for 21 states. Figures for remaining states were estimated by NRDC based upon the PERI data. For full methodology and explanation, click here.

Americans Save on Fuel Bills Under ACES

2009-06-26T15:03:48Z

The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act allocates funding to produce the next generation of clean, fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States, and when combined with clean vehicle performance standards adopted by the Obama administration, the American on-road fleet will become about 25% more fuel efficient over the next decade.

As a result, by 2020, Americans will drive more efficient vehicles and have lower household transportation costs. Even in the face of rising gasoline prices, cleaner vehicles will save money by sipping instead of guzzling gasoline.

For detailed methodology and explanations, and a printable map, click here.

Climate Bill Puts Americans in the Green

2009-06-24T15:10:03Z

There's a lot of talk about the costs of the proposed climate bill for American consumers. As we've documented repeatedly, opponents of climate policy have cranked out lots of "studies" to prove the bill will crater the economy.

The latest garbage to come out of the opposition team was the map that suddenly popped up last week, purporting to show that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would rob states of large sums of cash. Kate Sheppard of Grist traced it back to the National Mining Association in a terrific piece.

While the NMA map was a good visual, it wasn't a good actual. As in, actual representation of the bill it purports to represent. As Kate notes, the analysis on which it was based didn't actually model the bill. Which as I've noted before is a tried and true way to show catastrophic effects for climate legislation.

The Climate Bill Cuts Electricity Bills

Well, NRDC did model the actual bill. And its actual provisions. And we find that Americans in nearly every state will save on their monthly electricity bill under the American Clean Energy and Security Act. With its energy-efficiency and consumer protection provisions, H.R. 2454 creates modest savings for most consumers. Even in the few states where savings compared to business-as-usual are not projected, bills still will be lower under H.R. 2454 than they were in 2007.

For detailed methodology and explanations, download the pdf.

Update: NRDC's findings are broadly consistent with both the EPA and Congressional Budget Office analyses of the bill, both of which project costs of less than $0.50 per for the average American household, as my colleague Dan Lashof explains.

Phony Arch Coal Map Leads Members Astray

2009-06-19T13:00:00Z

You have to hand it to the coal industry. They are not content to just spend millions of dollars on "wild and crazy" advertising claims about "clean coal."

Now, they are bringing those same mad skills of deception to mapmaking. Yes, you read that right: We are now looking at lying via cartography.

This colorful map surfaced on Capitol Hill this week, purporting to show that most states would be hurt by the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Flogged during a press conference by Representatives Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA), the map is an obvious attempt to scare legislators away from the ACES bill.

The blood-red colors showing the "carnage" the bill would supposedly cause really jump off the page, but as usual the coal industry is playing fast and loose here.

For example, one cannot tell the maker of the map just by looking at it. You have to probe a little deeper, as Grist did, to find out more where this map came from.

Click on the "Custom" tab of the "Properties" box on the file and you'll find Arch Coal's fingerprints in the form of an Arch Coal legislative staffer's name and email address together with the subject "Map Regarding Pending Climate Bill." (Amusingly, if you look under the "General" tab its evident that Arch cannibalized a map from an old Peabody investor presentation. Arch, you couldn't afford your own map?)

UPDATE: The Hill is reporting that the National Mining Association is taking credit for making the map happen.

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure out the play here: Arch wants Congress to think that the ACES bill will cost a lot because they want to tilt the playing field to favor coal burning as much as possible. But their map is as phony as the claim that electricity consumers would be hurt.

That's because Arch Coal is using phony math to exaggerate the cost of the bill by comparing each state's electric generation emissions to the emissions allowances each state's electricity consumers would get for free while ignoring other allowances states will get, also for free. The coal lobby wants us to believe that if a state has more emissions than allowances, the bill will cost the residents big-time.

But this is inaccurate and misleading for several reasons. For starters, electrons don't stop at the state line. As my colleague Laurie Johnson explains, states sell power to their neighbors, and their neighbors' neighbors. If you ignore electricity imports and exports, you get a phony picture of how electricity costs are actually spread around the country.

And in many states a lot of electricity is sold to industrial firms whose products are shipped all around the country and the world. That means the modest increases in total electricity bills in some states will be spread in tiny amounts over tens of millions of consumers of those goods outside the states where they are manufactured. (Laurie has some great charts showing this.)

Why do we say the bill increases are modest? Because the ACES bill also provides free allowances to many industries to protect them and their customers from increased electricity costs, which otherwise might result in unfair competition from overseas producers. But the coal lobby map ignores that too.

One more reason to be skeptical about the Arch map: It cites the Energy Information Administration and the Congressional Budget Office as its sources. A reader might assume that means the mapmaker got their #s for emission allowance allocations from those sources. But neither the EIA or CBO have calculated how much each state would get. So who knows who came up with the allocation breakdown the "analysis" ostensibly relies upon?

For a...well, fact-based picture of how ACES will affect electric bills, take a look at this map using data crunched by utility company consultant MJ Bradley. This map is a truer representation because it takes imports and exports into account, and puts the figure in terms of actual impacts on monthly electric bills. In most states, the electric bill impact is a few dimes a day.

These results are broadly consistent with the EPA's own modeling of the bill, which shows that for most people, the investment in clean energy will require about a dime per day.

But for those folks whose purchasing power is diminished by the impact of the legislation on electric bills, the bill provides direct cash refunds. This provision is so effective that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities announced in a May 2009 news release about the bill "The consumer refund, in combination with the allocations to utility companies under the Waxman-Markey bill, would succeed in fully offsetting the average loss of purchasing power that low-income households would face, adjusted for household size."

And that doesn't even count the fact that the federal energy efficiency provisions included in the bill could save approximately $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030, according to a preliminary analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Savings from reduced energy use will be reinvested locally, generating economic activity and jobs. Many agree that these savings are conservative estimates of the savings that consumers will see.

The lesson here? We already knew we can't trust coal industry TV ads. And now we know that we can't trust their maps.

News Flash: More Jobs and Lower Energy Costs Good for Low-Income Americans

2009-06-18T16:38:03Z

Memo

TO: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Heritage Foundation and other industry groups predicting the end of life as we know if America takes action on climate change

FROM: Natural Resources Defense Council, Political Economic Research Institute/University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Green for All and the Center For American Progress

Subject: Inconvenient New Study Debunks Your Scare Tactics about the American Clean Energy and Security Act

It's time to face facts. You are just wrong when you forecast massive job losses, economic dislocation and harm to low-income Americans if the U.S. takes action on energy/green jobs issues. Contrary to what you've been suggesting, it turns out that "down is not up" and "night is not day": More green jobs resulting from tackling climate change is a good thing for America - including lower-income households.

Today, NRDC and Green for All are releasing "Green Prosperity: How Clean-Energy Policies Can Fight Poverty and Raise Living Standard in the United States" a new report by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI.)

The report finds that half of the net new jobs created through clean energy investments would be accessible to workers with high school degrees or less, and that about 75% of those jobs will offer good opportunities promotions and rising wages over time. In addition, investments in energy efficiency and transportation reduce monthly living expenses, which consume a high proportion of the budgets for low-income budgets.

The report concludes:

"The building of a clean-energy economy in the United States can also serve another purpose: to create new 'pathways out of poverty' for the 78 million people in this country (roughly 25 percent of the population) who are presently poor or near-poor, and raise living standards more generally for low-income people in the United States."

According to a complementary study that PERI recently completed with the Center for American Progress (CAP), clean-energy investments at the level of about $150 billion per year-i.e. around 1 percent of U.S. GDP-can generate about 1.7 million net new jobs throughout the U.S. economy."

Here is what the new study found:

Less unemployment and more earnings

The 1 percentage point fall in unemployment should raise earnings for low-income workers by about 2 percent.

More & better jobs for those who need them most

More than half of the net new jobs - roughly 870,000 - would be accessible to workers with high school degrees or less.
About 75% of those jobs - roughly 614,000 - will offer good opportunities promotions and rising wages over time. The job creation within this category is seven times larger than the number of jobs that would be created in this category by spending the same amount of money within the fossil fuel industry.
3.2 times more jobs overall than fossil-fuel investments.

{Sidebar: See and hear workers in the clean energy economy talk about their clean energy jobs here.}

Lower home utility bills for low-income Americans

Making homes more energy efficient reduces living costs by an average of 3-4 percent for low-income households.

Improved Public Transportation

Improving public transportation in urban centers to about 25-50 percent of total transportation could lower costs and raise living standards for low-income households by an average of 1-4 percent.
The largest benefits will accrue to households that can replace a car with public transit.
These households would see their annual transportation expenditures fall by roughly $2,000.
This would represent a reduction in total expenditures for these families by about 10 percent.

So, let's get the story straight: Tackling climate change means more jobs, more income and lower living expenses for low-income Americans. The conclusion is simple: If you really care about poor and near-poor Americans, get on the right team and start working for Congressional action on climate change and green jobs. I'm not holding my breath here, but I would like to think that you can't ignore the facts forever!

US Chamber Ramps Up Campaign Against Its Own Members’ Interests

2009-06-11T16:22:06Z

Yesterday was a banner day for anyone keeping an eye on the US Chamber of Commerce's extraordinary capacity for willful ignorance of its own members' interests on energy and climate issues.

The Chamber announced a $100 million campaign to defend against "anti-business activists" who are attacking America's free enterprise values. (Odd. No word here about defending motherhood and apple pie against all the barbarians at the gate!)

In the Chamber's news release, President Tom Donohue said: "Many union leaders, some environmentalists, and a growing force of anti-business activists are pushing governments at all levels to close trading markets, lock down capital markets, expand entitlements, and raise taxes and debt to unsustainable levels."

Donohue thus named two out of the three constituencies that historically haven't seen eye-to-eye, but have been aligned on the need to pass federal climate legislation: unions and environmentalists.

But Donohue left out businesses, many of which support federal climate legislation - including, of course, the Chamber's own members such as Alcoa, Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Company, Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, Eastman Kodak, Entergy, Fox Entertainment Group, IBM , Lockheed, Nike Inc., PepsiCo, PNM Resources, Rolls Royce North America Inc., Siemens Corporation, Southern Company, The Robertson Foundation, Toyota Motor North America Inc. and Xerox.

Wow Mr. Donohue! Isn't it a bit extreme, calling your own members "anti-business activists" just because they think the Chamber is wrong in its stance on climate change. I guess you better get used to fuming at your own members and more in the business community, given yesterday's other announcements.

The unmentioned backdrop to the Chamber release is that it and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) are both facing internal rebellions from members who do not want them to keep speaking for them as the Chamber and NAM pursue extremist agendas on climate policy.

As Politico reported:

An alliance of 14 organizations that support climate change legislation has sent letters to companies that are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, urging them to demand a refund of any dues being used by the two groups to oppose a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The letter urges companies to ask the Chamber and the NAM, which oppose climate legislation currently moving through the House, to return the portion of their dues that fund the pair's climate and energy lobbying activities.

The letter from the alliance, led by the Center for Political Accountability, explains that the refund is "essential to assure that the company is not funding its opponents and undermining its interests through its trade association payments."

The letter was sent to 26 companies, including Xerox, Ford Motor Co., Alcoa, IBM and General Electric.

The Center for Political Accountability says it has received positive responses from Air Products and Chemicals, American Electric Power and Dow Chemical and is in the process of following up with those companies. (emphasis added)

You can read the full text of the letter coordinated by the Center for Political Accountability. The following is a highlight:

Climate change is not the first time that companies and associations have had major differences. Some companies have handled these differences by requesting that their association: [1] disclose prominently and clearly on its website that the company disagrees with the association's position on an issue; and [2] refund or credit to the company the portion of its payment to the association that is being used on the issue ... As investors, we see (these two steps) as critical to the company being able to achieve its business goals, avoid unnecessary and dangerous reputation and business risks, and bring its expenditures in line with its publicly stated policies and values on an issue it considers important. Moreover, they are essential to assure that the company is not funding its opponents and undermining its interests through its trade association payments.

As if that wasn't enough, there was the full page ad in today's Wall Street Journal. Organized by Ceres, the ad can be viewed here. It reads in part as follows:

We are business leaders from companies of all sizes, many sectors, and from across the country, calling for your leadership to ensure America's prosperous, competitive future. We need you to swiftly enact comprehensive legislation that will cut carbon pollution and create an economy-wide cap and trade program.

We support this legislation for many reasons: because by putting a price on carbon, it will drive investment into cost-saving, energy saving technologies; because it will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy; because it will provide the predictability we need to plan for future business success; and because our companies and our economy will be more productive.

The group ad not only departs significantly from the irresponsible hard-line approach of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on climate, but it also is notable for its signers - including such major emitters as Duke Energy, Austin Energy, PG&E and PSEG. So much for the canard that the only companies differing with the Chamber and NAM are those that don't generate much carbon pollution!

Spain Rejects Calzada "Spanish Jobs" Study

2009-05-20T15:48:47Z

I and others have blogged about the "spanish jobs study" that trashes green jobs, and which the Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment for the Navarre region in Spain has criticized.

Now a Spanish Government official has outlined the Spanish government's rejection of the conclusions found in Gabriel Calzada's "spanish jobs study" in a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. As Teresa Ribera Rodriguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate and Minister of the Environment for Rural and Marine Affairs, says:

"We are surprised by the echoes that a paper signed by Gabriel Calzada on the effects of employment due to the promotion of renewable energy is having in the House of Representatives and the US Media...Although there are several studies of different sources that have analyzed the positive impact of renewable energy policies in terms of employment, and that would serve as answer, the Spanish Government would like to express its views."

Of the Calzada paper, Rodriguez says "data used in [the] analysis are totally out of keeping with the current reality of the sector," and that the analysis is "simplistic" and uses a "non-rigorous methodology."

Spains' Union Institute for Employment, Health and the Environment is also weighing in, with an extensive debunking of the study (translated from the Spanish original) which finds Calzada's work heavy on editorial opinion and burdened with incorrect and misrepresented facts.

Specific points from the Spanish Government and ISTAS letters are summarized here:

Calzada's analysis is based on seriously flawed logic. As the Spanish Government letter says, "The conclusions are based on two static and simplistic ratios, from which it is difficult to draw valid conclusions as they compare non-comparable elements."

The first ratio compares the economic support given to renewable energies in Spain per job with the average capital per job in Spain. A more valid comparison would have compared support to renewables with support to other energy sources - something other studies have done and shown very different conclusions from Calzada's.
The second ratio compares annual support for renewable energy per job with the average productivity per job in Spain. As the letter from the Spanish Government says, "This comparison has no value."

Calzada blames renewables for job losses by assuming renewables are Spain's only electricity source. This conclusion is insupportable, however, as:

Electricity prices are influenced by several factors. In Spain, as ISTAS points out, prices are affected
- The impact and evolution of crude oil prices
- The Spanish importation of coal, which accounted for more than 60% of the total coal used in 2008.
- The costs of nuclear waste treatment, calculated to be around 2,700 million euros.
Renewable energy is one of Spain's cheaper electricity sources and has actually been lowering prices in Spain.
- According to ISTAS, the production of wind energy in Spain brought market prices down by 7.08 euros/MWh in 2005, 12.44 euros/MWh in 2006 and 12.44 euros/MWh between January 1st and May 31st, 2007.
- In relative terms, this contributed to a drop in the average market price of between 11.7%, 8.6% and 25.1%, respectively.
Spain's electricity prices are below the EU average.
- According to ISTAS, in Spain the prices per 100 kWh of domestic energy amounted to 12.25 euros in 2007, which is less than the average of 15.28 euros found in the other 27 countries that make up the European Union (UE-27) and the average of 16.05 euros found in the Euro Area; also the price for industrial energy use in Spain amounts to 9.87 euros, which is less than the 10.70 euros of the UE-27 and the 11.23 euros found in the Euro Area.

Calzada's renewable energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada claims 52,200 direct and indirect jobs (but as with other 'facts' provides no citation for this figure.) By comparison, Spain's Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade says the renewable energy sector in Spain employs 73,900 direct workers. Spain's Labor Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health estimates 89,000 direct jobs and 99,690 indirect jobs.

Calzada's wind energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada states there are 15,000 people employed in the wind energy sector in Spain. But the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade puts the figure at more than twice that, 37,730 people.

Calzada doesn't source his facts. As ISTAS details,

No bibliographical reference is specified for much of the data. Under the "bibliography" at the end of the paper, there is only one word: "Pending."
Calzada does not provide explanations of his calculations.
The data has been obtained from secondary sources, without considering whether they are of a comparable nature or not.

The paper appears to be politically motivated. As ISTAS states: "We are not dealing with a study here but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts. It is a document that is full of errors, a result of the haste incurred in getting it published in order to take advantage of the effect, and it fails at times to honor truth. These errors go anywhere from simple typos or omissions, to the "deliberate" misuse and confusion of terminology."

The Spanish Government letter concludes with an unequivocal affirmation of the Government's recognition of the value of renewable energy and its commitment to it, noting that Spanish renewable energy policy is widely supported, and that it "has established the pillars of the transformation of our energy model to face the future challenges; that has generated important benefits in environmental terms; that has created net jobs; that has created and improved a powerful industrial fabric, helping the rise of leading companies, not only at a national level but also at an international one, with great export and innovation capacity."

Rodriguez concludes, "In the renewable energy field, Spain is an example to be followed."

Broad and diverse support for Waxman-Markey's American Clean Energy and Security Act

2009-05-19T20:12:27Z

Support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is coming in from a broad and diverse range of constituencies, including businesses, unions, elected officials, environmental groups, organizations representing low-income Americans and people of faith and coalitions combining some of those constituencies.

Here are excerpts from letters that have been sent to the Energy and Commerce Committee, most of which are posted on the committee website.

Dow: "We support your aim to move the bill through the Committee, and we look forward to working with you and others in Congress as this legislation is further considered."

Exelon: "We may be on the brink of something astounding in Washington. This is due to the hard work and political courage of President Obama, Chairmen Waxman and Markey, Congressman Boucher, Senator Bingaman and many others."

GE: "On behalf of GE, I would like to offer my support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill represents a strong step toward an energy policy for the United States that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, set us on a path to a more secure energy and economic future, and make the United States the world's technology leader in energy."

United Auto Workers (UAW): "The UAW generally supports H.R. 2454 and urges Members of the Committee to vote to favorably report this measure."

FPL Group: "We are encouraged by all of the recent progress that has been made on the bill, and as such, we support moving it through the committee process and onto the House floor. It is vital that legislation pass this year."

Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA): "We feel the time to act is now and the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) provides a road map of federal policies to move our country toward building a clean energy economy - an economy that both combats global warming and creates millions of good paying jobs."

PG&E: "We believe that the ACESA includes many of the key provisions and concepts listed above, to varying degrees, and we encourage you to support moving the legislation out of Committee."

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "Our estimate is that setting aside 15 percent of the allowance value for refunds and tax credits for consumers, together with other provisions in the bill setting aside free allowances that the companies receiving them must use for consumer relief, would ensure that the average household in the bottom 20 percent of the population would not experience any reduction in the purchasing power of its budget. We strongly commend you for including this protection for low-income households in your legislation, which we hope the Energy and Commerce Committee will approve."

United States Climate Action Partnership: "USCAP believes the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) broadly embraces the approach recommended in the USCAP Blueprint for Legislative Action that we issued in January 2009. While not every USCAP recommendation is contained in ACESA, USCAP urges the full Committee to advance the bill so Congress can continue to build on the progress made by the Committee thus far."

Clean Energy Group (The Clean Energy Group is composed of Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy Group, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, FPL Group, Inc., National Grid, PG&E Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group Seattle City Light): "We look forward to reviewing the imminent legislative language and hope that the Committee moves swiftly and constructively to advance a bill as a first step toward enacting a national climate change program this year."

Blue-Green Alliance (United Steelworkers, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees Union International, Laborers International Union of North America): "As the nation continues to face high unemployment and the threat of climate change, Chairmen Waxman and Markey have shown true leadership on this critical issue. . . Passing comprehensive climate legislation is a critical step forward. The Blue Green Alliance looks forward to working with Congress to make certain that the provisions in this legislation ensure the creation of millions of good, family-sustaining green jobs in the United States and the protection of public health and the environment for future generations."

Climate Communities (representing elected officials from Sacramento County, CA; King County, WA; Tacoma, WA; Snohomish County, WA; Montgomery County, MD; Monmouth County, NJ; Sonoma County, CA; Story County, IA; Dubuque, IA; Dane County, WI; New Kent County, VA; Burlington, VT; King County, WA; Stamford, CT; Loudoun County, VA; Washtenaw County, MI; Snohomish County, WA; Savannah, GA; Nassau County, NY; James City County, VA; Annapolis, MD; Santa Monica, CA; Santa Ana, CA; Miami-Dade County, FL):

"On behalf of the hundreds of local governments across America working with the Climate Communities coalition to support national action on climate change, we write to convey our support for the passage of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a strong first step on the path to climate legislation. Local governments are ready to play our part in meeting the climate challenge and creating a clean energy economy, and this legislation will create real incentives for progress and innovation in both the public and private sectors."

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America: "The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, is pleased that based on our discussions with the Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Markey and other key offices, the legislation includes non-profits and houses of worship in this retrofit program and we applaud Reps. Waxman and Markey for this important clarification."

Audubon: "The National Audubon Society strongly urges you to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)."

NRDC: "I urge you to vote in favor of reporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) during this week's markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This legislation will create clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, and finally limit the carbon pollution that causes global warming."

American Rivers, Audubon, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Clean Water Action, Climate Solutions, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters of the United States, National Parks Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Pew Environment Group, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund:

"On behalf of the millions of people we represent, we urge you to strengthen and support the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which sets us on the path toward creating clean energy jobs, reducing our dangerous dependence on oil, and cutting the carbon pollution that causes global warming. This committee vote is the most important in decades, and we hope you will do all that you can to strengthen and pass this legislation."

National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA): "Climate change will severely impact the operations of these utilities, which is why we strongly support comprehensive legislation to mitigate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the overall approach taken in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES)."

National Consumers League: "The National Consumers League (NCL), America's oldest consumer advocacy organization, applauds your introduction of H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act. We strongly support the enactment of comprehensive new legislation that will promote clean energy and help to reverse the rapidly deteriorating environmental circumstance of the world."

(NOTE: These are excerpts. If you want to know all the details of where any organization stands on the bill, read their entire letter.)

Climate Math: How the "Chicken Littles" Cook the Numbers

2009-05-19T16:30:13Z

The transition to clean energy, reducing our dependence on dangerous foreign oil and protecting our environment will cost less than some would have you think.

In April, the EPA estimated that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would cost households less than the cost of a postage stamp each day, roughly $100-$140 per year. Since then, the EPA estimates the changes to the bill will reduce the cost of allowances by 10%, which will in turn lower the actual cost to households.

The EPA is not alone in forecasting only nominal impacts from the bill. Numerous academic and government studies have found that climate legislation has a nearly indistinguishable impact on GDP.

So what to make of predictions that climate legislation will have devastating impacts on U.S. businesses and the economy? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce compares regulating global warming pollution to "suicide bombing the American economy." The Heritage Foundation makes its own doom and gloom claims, saying the American Clean Energy and Security Act "promises job losses" and "income cuts." (Rebuttals to several such economic forecasts can be found at www.co2mediaguide.org.)

But have such predictions been borne out in the past? With decades of environmental regulation and cost data behind us, a number of experts have asked and answered this question. As Frank Ackerman of Tufts University summarizes in his paper "The Unbearable Lightness of Regulatory Costs,"

"The evidence is clear: the costs of environmental protection are much more often overestimated, rather than underestimated, in advance...One study found that compliance costs for environmental regulations were overestimated in advance in 11 out of 12 cases (Hodges 1997). Another study found that advance cost estimates for environmental compliance turned out to be more than 25 percent too high in 14 out of 28 cases, while they were more than 25 percent too low in only 3 of the 28 cases (Harrington et al. 2000). A study for Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology, focusing specifically on the costs of controlling chlorinated substances, confirmed that overestimation of regulatory costs is more common than underestimation (Cheminfo Services 2000)." [emphasis added]

Environmental Defense Fund presents some clear examples in a 2007 letter to Congress:

A 1997 Economic Policy Institute report detailed a number of cases where environmental regulations were overestimated. The average overestimate on this list is 600%:

It isn't that surprising that despite thirty years of claims about economic doom and gloom being proven false, industry and opponents of climate legislation continue to trot such claims out. What is surprising is anyone listens to them anymore.

Clean energy job profile: hybrid-battery maker in Ohio

2009-05-19T14:22:17Z

When Wes McGuire's employer - a Middletown, Ohio factory - shut down, Wes had to find a new job. Fortunately he found and completed a two-week training course at his local county career center. This led to an interview with Cobasys, which hired him the same day. Wes is now a maintenance technician and CWA-IUE member at Cobasys, a Springboro firm that manufactures batteries for hybrid vehicles.

In Wes' words:

"It makes me feel good that I'm on the cutting edge of technology... to actually help the environment. I can make a living doing something I like to do, plus help the planet at the same time. Because if we don't do it, nobody else is going to. Every choice we make every day is going to have an impact."

"Instead of sitting around talking about it, let's just do it... I think the United States is on the right track and getting away from foreign oil and dependency on every other country. And here's where it starts. So I feel lucky that I got on the [ground] floor of it and I can watch it grow and be a part of it. If I can do it, anyone can do it. It's just putting forth the effort."

**Note: Clean energy workers like Wes are vulnerable to the economic downturn and troubled automakers. Moving forward with clean energy and climate legislation will help expand the numbers of hybrids and plug-in hybrids out there, expanding the hybrid-battery industry and the businesses and jobs that support it.

The U.S. Chamber Split Grows Wider: Now Local Chambers Are Going Their Own Way

2009-05-18T15:39:08Z

The US Chamber of Commerce is famous for punishing officeholders and other political candidates who have the temerity to disagree with the Chamber's views. But what happens when the US Chamber's own members and affiliates reject its "predictably stalwart" opposition to reasonable policies on climate change and green jobs?

One "solution" is to try to pooh-pooh the problem, as Chamber staff have been doing over the last several days.

Confronted with a story about Johnson & Johnson and Nike asking the Chamber to change its position on climate, Bill Kovacs, the Chamber's vice president for the environment, technology and regulatory affairs, tried to wave the story away, saying that the Chamber's environment and energy committee had just debated climate policy for three hours. As Politico reported, Kovacs said "At the end of the debate, there were no members asking to change our policy."

But it just isn't that easy to blow off multi-billion dollar corporations, as it turns out. Roll Call reports today that an executive with PNM Resources took issue with Kovacs' version of events, saying: "In my opinion it is inaccurate to call it a debate, and it is especially inaccurate to say that there was no call for changes to the policy when there were a number of members who stated the chamber policy did not represent their corporate position and they were therefore interested in how to change that policy." Which is a pretty clear rebuke coming from a company that is on the US Chamber board of directors and on its environment and energy committee. (PNM Resources is also a member of USCAP.)

Kovacs' response to this public correction may seem bizarre to those who know the Chamber's distaste for regulatory burdens and red-tape. Roll Call reports him saying that: "So far, no companies have filed a motion that they want the chamber to revisit it, according to Kovacs." (Gee, do they need to fill that out in triplicate?) That's right, those companies who want the Chamber to modify its position on climate apparently haven't filled out the right form. As Roll Call explains, "companies were told that in order to change the group's policy, committee members would need to file a motion and wait 30 days for members to review the policy before voting on it."

The interesting thing is it isn't just corporate members who think there's a better way than the unconstructive approach being taken at the national level by the U.S. Chamber. It looks like grassroots Chamber affiliates have their own ideas about which way the future lies. Consider these examples of local, regional and state Chambers who are looking to help members meet new climate regulations and even see a powerful economic future based on clean energy:

Last week, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce held a videoconference event for its members that seemed oriented to helping businesses understand what they would need to do to comply with carbon regulations and how to do it. Topics included "How to Prepare for the Coming GHG Regulations;" "How to Avoid Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Materials and Land Management;" and "Keeping Your Company Green: GHG Protocols and The Climate Registry (TCR)."
The St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association hosted a March 31, 2009 event where "a coalition of international business and environmental groups [including NRDC] discussed the USCAP proposal to tackle climate change." Not only did they discuss it - they discussed it in positive terms.
Instead of fighting the inevitable on climate policy, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce held a major "Climate Leader Series 2009" event on May 13, 2009. As that local Chamber noted: "Savvy organizations are finding that lowering their impact on the environment does not have to mean reducing their opportunities to grow and be profitable. Leading businesses are reducing their energy costs and environmental impacts while incorporating various efficiency and sustainable practices."
The Erie (PA) Regional Chamber and Growth Partnership has participated in two events focused on green jobs and climate. Here is the flyer for the October 2008 event.
In April, NRDC joined with the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce to host an event on how climate change will impact Florida and its businesses.
Individual local Chamber officials are also willing to come out publicly and sound sane when it comes to climate matters. Consider this straight shooting oped article in the Roanoke (VA) Times from Lee Wilhelm, chairman of the board of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce.

There are more examples out there, but I think you probably get the idea.

It looks like the Chamber knows its got a problem trying to hold together its image as the monolithic voice of business. Last week, the Chamber insisted it had no official position on the climate bill Congress is considering, but later that day it sent a letter up to the hill explaining its opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, saying "The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the Chamber's core principles on climate change, and to suggest a path forward on the issue."

But as the Wall Street Journal's Keith Johnson said of the Chamber's path forward: "So what does the Chamber of Commerce really want? More of the same, it seems."

But "more of the same" doesn't seem to be what the US Chamber's member companies and local affiliates are looking for.

US Chamber Flip-Flops – On Same Day! – On Climate Legislation

2009-05-15T00:05:05Z

Desperation must be the message of the day over at the US Chamber, which has just revealed (spoiler alert!) that it opposes the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Which is interesting because only this morning the Chamber's Bruce Josten was quoted in Roll Call insisting that the Chamber hadn't worked up a position on the bill:

"And Josten stressed that so far, at least, the Chamber hasn't worked up a formal position on the climate change bill. "We have never stated firm opposition to any federal regulation that requires reduction in greenhouse gas emissions," Josten said in response to MoveOn.org Political Action's delivery of a petition from 10,000 small-businesses asking the Chamber to stop lobbying against laws to reduce global warming pollution.

Which as anyone who pays attention knows is horse-hockey. Last week we reported that some of the Chambers's own board members have become thoroughly annoyed with its opposition to climate legislation, and have started agitating for change. Something tells me that this isn't the change they were looking for.

The open opposition comes just as moderate and conservative lawmakers are announcing they have reached deals (here, here, here and here) that will allow the bill to move forward. I guess once coal-country Democrat Rick Boucher got on board, the bill's strengthened prospects scared the doom and gloom crowd enough that they figured they should take the veil right off, just in case there's anyone left who listens to them.

But maybe the Chamber should be doing more listening itself. Here's what they are reported as saying as of the close of business today:

"Unfortunately, the debate in Congress has left the nation with two terrible options: (1) expensive, complicated, regulation-heavy, domestic-only legislation like ACES, or (2) an "even worse" set of mandatory CO2 controls on everyone and everything through existing Clean Air Act programs. The rigid ideology exhibited over the last twenty years of the climate change debate has not only clearly divided the nation but it has failed miserably to produce any results.

So much for that supposedly open mind from 10 a.m. It had snapped shut like a steel trap by 5 p.m. Sounds like the Chamber is projecting more than a little bit when it talks about Congress as an organization in the grips of "rigid ideology" on climate change.

Carrie Meets the OMB: the Big Climate Attack That Fizzled

2009-05-13T15:32:46Z

Remember that scene at the end of the 1970s horror movie classic "Carrie" where the girl goes to the cemetery and a hand pops up out of the grave and tries to pull her in?

In the movie, it turns out to be nothing more than a bad dream. Advocates for clean energy and green jobs had their "Carrie" moment yesterday when a supposed "White House" memo surfaced decrying proposals to move the US into the clean energy future and make polluters pay for their emissions. Grist, GetEnergySmartNow and SolveClimate have done great posts on the play-by-play of the memo's emergence and subsequent revelations about what it is and isn't.

One thing it isn't: a White House memo. OMB Director Peter Orszag made clear at that what some claimed to be a "smoking gun" was simply the detritus from the bottom of the suggestion barrel. Orszag made clear the document does not represent the White House position and that "The press reports to the contrary are simply false."

And as my colleague David Doniger points out, the arguments raised simply lack merit - which is pretty much why they were left in the barrel.

Here's what got us thinking about "Carrie": And as it turns out, the author of the anonymous memo is a leftover Bush appointee from the as ABC and AP reported late yesterday, an appointee in the Office of Advocacy in the Small Business Administration. (The Bush Administration reaches out from beyond the grave in one more futile attempt to stymie action on climate policy!)

Of course, a complete lack of merit is unlikely to stop the most vocal opponents of federal climate policies from trumpeting the inaccurate news reports. As the US Chamber of Commerce's Brad Peck reported on his blog yesterday, Bill Kovacs mentioned "the memo discovered today talking about the significant cost of regulating CO2."

No doubt the Chamber hopes that its small business members who go up to the hill to lobby Congress this week will talk about the OMB story and climate.

But not only does the U.S. Chamber not speak for all big businesses, its starting to look like it doesn't speak for all small businesses either. MoveOn.org Political Action has been organizing small businesses who want to move forward to a clean energy economy, and the idea is starting to resonate across the country. More on that soon!