Skip to main content

It’s Energy Bill Week!

Henry Waxman Okay, we know that’s not going to cause as much excitement in some quarters as it does ours, but it does look, at least in the House, like an all-hands brawl in the making. And that’s always fun: the Republicans have lined up over 400 amendments to introduce during the mark-up of the bill (which, according to the Politico story, can be squelched by Energy Committee chairman Henry Waxman.) Many of the amendments have no chance of passing the committee but do slow down the process of getting the bill out of committee.

But the bill, officially called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, has also gathered unusually broad support.

Here’s Exelon:

In a speech today [Friday] at the National Press Club, Exelon Chairman and CEO John W. Rowe joined the debate in Washington centered on the Waxman-Markey bill, calling on Congress to pass climate legislation this year that features a cap-and-trade system to encourage investment in low-carbon energy.

And here’s League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski:

Chairmen Waxman and Markey have worked tirelessly to bring forward a crucial and historic bill that will move America towards a clean, safe energy future. Their bill will create new clean energy jobs, improve our national security, and help protect our planet.  We encourage the House Energy and Commerce Committee to quickly send this bill to the House floor, where we look forward to working with Members of both sides of the aisle to strengthen it, in particular by increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions.

Greenpeace no, Environmental Defense Fund yes. And Al Gore?

He likened the Waxman-Markey bill to a civil rights bill: “the most important of our lives. It is a moral imperative.” He stated that it is an environmental Marshall Plan, which is what he called for (and outlined) in his book “Earth in the Balance.”

Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman recognizes the downside of cap-and-trade, the centerpiece of this legislation, especially since compromise is giving a fair number of the carbon credits away for free. That needn’t crater the market for carbon credits, which will form after they are all auctioned or given away, but it isn’t ideal. Krugman’s interesting column concludes:

Still, the bill represents major action to limit climate change. As the Center for American Progress has pointed out, by 2020 the legislation would have the same effect on global warming as taking 500 million cars off the road. And by all accounts, this bill has a real chance of becoming law in the near future.

Indeed it does. We want to see how some of the markup goes before determining nuclear energy’s role in the bill. It has some already, but this is legislation where nuclear could play a determinative role. Let’s see if that happens.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

Comments

Alex Brown said…
This is the legislation which if passed will completely cripple our economy to the point of no return. If this passes this recession will just be the beginning. Throwing 400 billion a year down the toilet and killing our industries ability to compete overseas is not exactly the way to solve a recession.
Demesure said…
"As the Center for American Progress has pointed out, by 2020 the legislation would have the same effect on global warming as taking 500 million cars off the road."
----------------
And, the effect of taking 500 million cars off the road on global warming is ... ??? (assuming the number 500 million holds water, which is doubtfull and assuming no harm to the economy and liberty which is doubly doubtfull)

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…