Potential Energy

Senate Energy Bill Unveiled

Some of the money raised from caps on carbon emissions would be given to taxpayers.

Kevin Bullis 05/12/2010

  • 9 Comments

A long-awaited energy bill was unveiled today by its Senate sponsors, John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). According to a summary (pdf) of the bill, it would reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting limits on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and heavy industry, and from producers and importers of refined fuels for transportation.

The limits will only apply to those who emit over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, which works out to about 7,500 factories and power plants, according to the summary. These emitters will have to purchase emissions allowances, cut emissions, or both to meet the targets. Those who pollute less than their allowances can sell them to others in a market-based system.The proceeds from buying the allowances will be divided up--some will go to pay down the deficit; some will fund research and development; some will go to businesses to help them meet the caps; and the rest will be mailed to taxpayers in the form of a refund check. As the years go by, more of the proceeds will go directly to taxpayers.

The plan is very similar to the cap and trade system in a bill the House passed last year, except that one didn't involve sending out refund checks (although there were provisions to help out poor people who are affected by higher energy bills). The new bill also only covers parts of the economy, rather than the whole thing.

Numerous provisions cater to different interests. It supports offshore drilling but lets states opt out. For those worried that a cap on carbon emissions will hurt the coal industry, the bill contains support for capturing and storing carbon from coal plants, which could help them meet the caps. Supporters of natural gas will find tax incentives for people to switch to natural gas powered vehicles, as well as other subtle changes that will make it more attractive to build natural gas power plants. Industries affected by the cap get a couple of boons. First, factories (not power plants) don't get regulated until 2016, and the money from the purchases goes back to them to help them pay for switching to cleaner technology. They also are protected by trade provisions designed to keep business from moving to countries without caps on carbon. Farmers are exempt. And they'll make billions with carbon offsets--such as planting trees that absorb and store carbon dioxide. Nuclear gets $54 billion in loan guarantees, as well as "risk insurance" to help get new power plants financed. There will also be money to promote battery-powered cars.

Renewable energy, carbon capture, and energy efficiency researchers should be happy. Money from the allowances and direct government funding will help extend R&D funding launched by the stimulus package last year.

The summary is careful to emphasize that Wall Street won't make money by buying and trading carbon allowances because of strict regulations. But it didn't mention how much this is likely to increase energy bills.

Now the sponsors have to start gathering votes. We'll soon see if they've spread enough incentives around first to get it taken up on the Senate floor, and then maybe even passed.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

cymshah

14 Comments

  • 636 Days Ago
  • 05/12/2010

Emission Allowances

Anything about companies selling unused emission allowances to other companies that pollute more?

Reply

Kevin Bullis

177 Comments

  • 635 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

Re: Emission Allowances

Yes, companies would be able to trade allowances.

Reply

howiem

16 Comments

  • 635 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

Senate Energy Bill Unveiled

Legislation never does what it claims it will, evidence healthcare in which costs are rising almost daily because it was a blank check for thousands of rules to be written that the public has no information an their impacts.  Given that it is not "settled science" that CO2 is harmful at current/projected levels, you can bet that we are being sold another bill of increased costs and economic retardation.  Don't forget Obama's promise that energy costs will skyrocket.  This bill is sure to make that happen, inter alia.

Reply

RD

211 Comments

  • 635 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

Unintended Consequences

Prediction if it passes:
More jobs go to China;
US goes bankrupt faster;
Climate isn't improved;
Green Technology is built in China because of their monopoly of rare earth elements;
Electricity quadruples in price;
Democrats lose Senate and House;
Obama doesn't run for re-election in 2012 because approval ratings are 20%;
George Soros makes $10 billion more betting against US dollar;
Al Gore adds extension to his $10 million house in California and trades in for bigger jet.

Reply

Devere

32 Comments

  • 635 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

Lukewarm response to bill

This bill has some strange aspects (such as paying the people with the money made on cap&trade), but also some typical aspects (more drilling, more nuke, more R&D for renewable).
One thing is for certain. This bill will have almost no effect between now and 2012. As the article states, nothing happens until after 2016.
Given that there's also a good chance that CO2 emissions will decrease on their own as oil and coal reserves are depleted, I not in favor of taxing greenhouse gas pollution and redistributing the funds back to a) business b) the people and c) more R&D. This bill seems to give the government too much power.
And for that reason, I'm not in favor of this bill, but, don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favor of the idea of cap&trade.
I'm in favor of a world greenhouse gas capt&trade system where emission allowances are given out as follows:
~50% based on the country's current emissions of greenhouse gases.
~50% based on the country's current population.

The emission allowances are given away free at the beginning and the amount of greenhouse gas emission allowed per permit will decrease by a known factor over time so that we reach a peak level of CO2 (equivalent) around 450 to 600 ppm. (The peak number would have been to reached in negotiations between all countries.) The permits could be bought/sold on a world market, similar to the market of permits currently created by the Kyoto protocol in Europe.

After that, I say: let the market figure out which technology is cheapest given the cost of purchasing greenhouse gas permits for the power plants. And if environmentalists want to lower the peak in the greenhouse gases, then they should hold a fundraiser, buy some GHG permits on the market, and then just sit on them.

We need government to set the regulations, and to enforce the regulations, but we don't need government welfare, which this bill seems to support (such as more R&D, loan guarantees, and tax&redistribution of permits.)




Reply

kstauff

130 Comments

  • 635 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

A little disingenuous

Kevin,

The subtopic on this is a little disingenuous.  It should read *some* of the money.  It's a tax on energy production, and money raised from this should not be spent on deficit reduction or other programs. 

If you want to reduce the deficit, you can start by reducing entitlements.  This is just a fat new revenue stream for the government to take more money from its citizens, money which it will largely waste like it does already.  Call your Senator and tell them NO on Kerry-Lieberman; this is a new tax to solve a non-existent problem.  Let them know that you're willing to donate to their political rival if they vote for this lie.

Reply

Kevin Bullis

177 Comments

  • 635 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

Re: A little disingenuous

Good point that it should read "some."  I changed it.

Reply

Advertisement

mkogrady

423 Comments

  • 634 Days Ago
  • 05/14/2010

987 pages of gibber

Yup - these are Law Makers in action.

Whatever happened to laws being written for the Common Man to be able to read?

Reply

cymshah

14 Comments

  • 554 Days Ago
  • 08/02/2010

Re: 987 pages of gibber

and They talk about protecting the environment; imagine how many copies of that gibber were printed...

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement