E-mail Story
Print Friendly
Send E-mail
Reprint story
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Bingaman Cautious on Cap-and-Trade
By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., was one of 26 Democrats who joined Republicans last week in voting to make it harder for the Senate to act quickly on President Barack Obama's greenhouse gas reduction proposals.
The Democratic defections mean that it will take 60 votes in the Senate, rather than a simple majority of 51, to get climate legislation passed this year. They came during a day of wrangling that signaled concerns about the potential cost of Obama's proposals.
The votes show a discomfort in Congress with the idea that greenhouse gas reductions could substantially raise energy prices for business and consumers, said Matt Letourneau, spokesman for the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"There's clearly concern among senators about the costs involved," Letourneau said.
Critics say the move would lead to weaker legislation because of the compromises needed to win 60 votes in the Senate. Supporters say it was needed to allow more thorough deliberation of the complex legislation.
The Obama administration and the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate are pushing for action this year on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to global warming and climate change.
Bingaman, who has worked for years to pass climate change legislation, joined Republicans for last week's vote because he did not want to short-circuit the deliberation needed to come up with a workable bill, spokeswoman Jude McCartin said.
The rules being considered would have allowed climate change legislation to be folded into the Senate's consideration of the federal budget, which allows limited debate and requires 51 votes for passage.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., voted in favor of allowing climate change action with 51 votes.
John Fogarty of New Energy Economy, a New Mexico group pushing for greenhouse gas reductions, said the Senate vote "will undoubtedly make any climate legislation that is passed profoundly weaker."
The issue is entangled in the federal budget process, because of a decision by the Obama administration to include revenue from the sale of emissions permits in long-range deficit-reduction plans.
That question — whether to auction the permits or give them to businesses for free — promises to be one of the most contentious areas of debate as climate change legislation moves forward. The Obama administration favors a 100 percent auction.
But in a widely quoted speech made at an energy conference last month, Bingaman argued that full auctions would hurt utility companies by dramatically increasing their costs, which they would pass along to consumers.
"To have 100 percent auction of allowances from the first day of a cap-and-trade system being in effect, I do think it runs the risk of causing substantial increased burdens on some utilities, some emitters," Bingaman said.
Officials from the Congressional Budget Office, in testimony last month, said costs to individual families could range from $700 a year for lower-income families to $2,200 a year for higher-income families.
Jeff Sterba, chief executive of Public Service Company of New Mexico, said a full auction of all emissions credits immediately would cause a rapid increase in energy bills. He argues for a gradual phase-in of emissions credit auctions. Fogarty argues that giving companies like PNM emissions credits for free would amount to a massive giveaway to corporations.
The Obama administration proposal to auction all emissions credits would offset the resulting increased energy costs by using revenue for tax rebates to all but the highest-income families. That approach is called "cap-and-dividend."
The Senate vote was one of five taken by senators last week that, while not settling any details of climate change legislation, offered clues to the political landscape as the debate goes forward, University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. said.
Among the votes was a motion calling for any climate change legislation to be structured in such a way that it not increase gas or electricity prices. It passed the Senate 89-8. Bingaman and Udall both voted against the measure.
It is unclear how that would be done, Pielke said, given that the purpose of a cap-and-trade system is to increase the cost of carbon-emitting energy sources relative to those that do not emit greenhouse gases.
The vote places such constraints on any cap-and-trade bill that comes out of Congress that it's unlikely it would have any effect on carbon emissions, Pielke said.
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
