The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 cleared its first of many hurdles to passage yesterday, passing the Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 33-25. The vote was mostly party line, with three conservative Democrats defecting (Mike Ross (AR-04), Jim Mathson (UT-02), and Charlie Melancon (LA-03)) and one Republican voting with the Democratic Majority (Mary Bono Mack (CA-45)).

Reactions are mixed from environmentalists and industry alike, but here is a partial round-up:

1Sky Celebrates
Sierra Club Applauds
Greenpeace: Broad Coalition Criticizes Climate bill
Scholars and Rouges has mixed emotions
Climate Bill Wins Enough Votes to Pass, but at What Cost?

President Obama’s statement

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.

There is some hope that the bill may be strengthened as it goes to the Ways and Means Committee in the House (and potentially several other committees), but most seem to believe that the bill will continue to get weaker. Consensus in the environmental community seems to be that the bill is imperfect, and even disappointing in many regards in its leniency to the fossil fuel industry which is destroying the climate in the first place. However, people seem excited because if passed this bill will begin to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a dire and necessary step in order to prevent catastrophic climate change within our lifetimes. President Obama, Chairman Waxman, and others believe that a win begets a win. For the environmental movement – passing a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions – even in an imperfect vehicle such as Waxman-Markey, must be the first of many such wins if we are to accomplish what the science says is necessary to save the planet as we know it.

Greenpeace is calling for renewed leadership from President Obama and Congress following the release of the drastically weakened Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill today. The American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACES) was already in need of improvement when first released as a discussion draft in March, and has become severely worse as members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee actively worked to weaken the bill on behalf of fossil fuels industries and other corporate polluters.

“Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state…”

Read the entire release and statement by Greenpeace

This just in from Jeff Bigger’s blog on Huffington post:

As American citizens in Mingo County and other areas of the flood-stricken Kentucky and West Virginia coalfields continue to dig themselves out of the muck, indefatigable Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward is reporting on his Coal Tattoo blog that the EPA has “signed off on almost all (87.5 percent, to be exact) of the mountaintop removal permits that has so far been reviewed under the initiative announced in March.”

Ward has just posted a letter dated yesterday from the EPA to US Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), announcing that:

“EPA has raised environmental concerns with six pending permit applications in the Corps’ Huntington District out of a total of approximately forty-eight we have reviewed. We have advised the Corps that EPA does not intend to provide additional comments on the remaining forty-two permits. The Corps may proceed with appropriate permit decisions on those remaining projects.”

READ THE FULL POST

By Robin Bravender, E&E reporter

(05/01/2009) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced today that the aging Capitol Power Plant will no longer burn coal, a practice that has long been criticized by environmental groups.

Stephen Ayers, the acting architect of the capitol, has reported that coal would be burned at the plant only if it is needed as an emergency backup. The Architect of the Capitol made the transition to natural gas as the primary fuel source for generating steam in March, according to a statement from Pelosi’s office.

In February, days before a scheduled protest against coal combustion at the plant, Pelosi and Reid called on Ayers to switch the plant entirely to natural gas (E&ENews PM, Feb. 26).

“For years, the Capitol Power Plant has been the largest source of carbon emissions on the Capitol Complex,” Reid said today. “The Architect’s switch to cleaner burning natural gas shows that the House and Senate are leading by example in reducing our emissions. I look forward to working with the Architect’s office to achieve even greater energy savings and efficiency through our greening programs.”

The nearly century-old plant, located just south of House office buildings, has been a contentious issue for years in Congress. Environmentalists and D.C. residents have continually called for the plant to stop burning coal, while lawmakers from coal-producing states have fought efforts to switch the plant entirely to natural gas.

Converting another boiler to burn natural gas will allow the plant to eliminate the use of coal even in the case of emergency situations, Ayers told Pelosi in an April 24 letter. The conversion could be completed as early as November 2010 or as late as October 2011, he said.

According to an article published this week on the Institute for Southern Studies’ webzine Facing South, “the TVA has begun shipping toxic coal ash from the massive spill that occurred last December at its Kingston, Tennessee power plant to landfills in the neighboring states of Georgia and Alabama. The counties where the ash is going have large black populations and high poverty rates, raising questions about environmental justice.

“Landfill officials in Georgia and Alabama told the paper that their facilities are lined with both clay and synthetic barriers, which makes them more protective than the unlined surface impoundment where TVA stored the ash prior to the spill.”

But according to the article, “researchers have found that solid waste landfills tend to be located disproportionately in communities of color and low-wealth communities. The communities that will be getting the coal ash from Tennessee apparently did not get a chance for meaningful involvement in that decision since neither the TVA — a federally-owned corporation — nor regulatory authorities provided an opportunity for public comment.”

“The urgency of doing something with the spilled ash is growing. Last week’s heavy rains in the Tennessee Valley washed large amounts of coal ash from the spill site and sent it flowing down the Emory River. There are also concerns that hot, dry summer weather will make it difficult to control airborne coal ash dust, a serious respiratory hazard.”

Read the full article on southernstudies.org

The only thing worse than no climate and energy bill in 2009 is a bad climate and energy bill. No matter how well intentioned, the efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives to frame such a bill have gone from weak to worse – the now all-too-familiar Washington path for tough decision making.

It’s maddening to realize that the more things change in Congress, the more they remain the same. Democrats screamed bloody murder when Vice President Dick Cheney met secretly with representatives of the fossil fuel industry to craft US energy policy. Not to be outdone, Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) committed the same offense by embracing the utility/coal industry blueprint for climate policy, which is now nestled in Waxman’s so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Is it really better for Americans if Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, exerts undue influence behind the scenes in calling the shots on energy policy instead of Exxon and Halliburton?

To be sure, there are pro-consumer provisions in the Waxman-Markey legislation. These include two mandates on utility companies. One is the mandate to force electric utilities to provide 25 percent of their power with renewable resources by 2025. The other is a similar mandate for energy efficiency investments amounting to 15 percent of their energy mix by 2020.

These are pro-consumer because energy efficiency and renewable energy investments, particularly when combined in one initiative, are cheaper than business as usual (BAU), meaning coal, nuclear and natural gas investments. Indeed, the savings of the modest mandates in Waxman-Markey could easily amount to well over $500 billion per year by 2030 compared to BAU.

Other than those two provisions, Congressmen Waxman and Markey should just change the name of this bill to the Utility & Coal Industry Profit Enhancement Act. The “cap and trade” provisions for dealing with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will only serve to enrich the utility industry and Wall Street hedge managers, while doing little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions. After the debacles in hedge funds and securitized mortgages, why would we create another financial system that is ripe for gaming and abuse?

Another self-serving utility provision promoted by Duke’s CEO in the Waxman-Markey draft legislation is the tax on ratepayers to pay for research and development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). If anyone watched Rogers’ interview with 60 Minutes a few weeks ago, they saw how he admitted that he has not spent a dime on carbon capture and sequestration research & development. Why? He’s waiting for Waxman, Markey and their colleagues to force ratepayers to pay for it.

Adding insult to injury, the legislation has a so-called “moratorium” on coal-fired power plants that just so happens to exempt 45 plants in various stages of permitting or construction, including Duke Energy’s proposed plants in North Carolina and Indiana of course. Funny how that worked out in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhoods!

The bottom line is this: If you liked what happened with subprime mortgages, you will love carbon cap and trade. The Waxman/Markey legislation is another Wall Street boondoggle waiting to happen. Not only do utility companies get to make billions offcarbon allowances, but ratepayers will see their electric rates become even more volatile as hedge managers speculate on those allowances. And guess who gets to pony up for bail-outs when this whole Rube Goldberg contraption blows up?

There is only one solution to this mess: It’s time to dump the House climate and energy bill and start over. Focus on strong renewable and efficiency standards. Scrap the cap and trade and CCS boondoggle provisions in the legislation. These days, nothing in Washington happens until the “medicine” is comprised and watered down so much that it ends up being almost as bad as the illness that it purports to cure. Half measures on energy and climate won’t do. It’s time to start over and get it right.