Space Stands Alone On Energy Bill
Only member of regional delegation to support measureBy JOSELYN KING
Article Photos
Fact Box
WHAT THE 'CAP AND TRADE' BILL WILL DO
- Reduce greenhouse gases by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 through a cap-and-trade program that allows pollution permits to be bought and sold.
- Limit emissions from major industrial sources, including power plants, factories, refineries and electricity and natural gas distributors. Emissions from agriculture would be excluded.
- Control carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and limiting six other greenhouse gases.
- Allow companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree planting and forest protection.
- Require electric utilities to produce at least 12 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy by 2020, and require as much as 8 percent in energy efficiency savings.
- Impose tighter performance standards on new coal-fired power plants and providing $1 billion a year in development money for capturing carbon dioxide from such plants.
- Establish standards to require new buildings to be 30 percent more energy-efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more by 2016.
WHEELING - Only one local congressman supported "cap and trade" legislation - intended to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants - as it passed the U.S. House Friday.
U.S. Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio, was among those voting "yes," as were eight Republicans who broke with party lines.
Space had been uncommitted throughout the week on how he would vote on "cap and trade." Messages left with Space's office Friday night seeking comment on his vote were not returned.
But 44 other Democrats voted against the White House-backed legislation. Among them were Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall, both D-W.Va., and Charles Wilson, D-Ohio. All had previously indicated their opposition to "cap and trade."
Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., joined with 168 Republicans in voting against the legislation, and she spoke out on the House floor during three hours of debate Friday.
"At a time when families are already struggling just to meet basic needs, the last thing we need is a new energy tax on all consumers," Capito said. "Yet that's what the majority's bill amounts to.
"It's a $646 billion national energy tax that will burden consumers, burden businesses and particularly burden our lower-income families. It picks regional winners and losers, with coal-dependent manufacturing states like West Virginia bearing the brunt of this bill."
She urged support for her own legislation, calling for an "all-of-the-above energy plan" in which royalties from offshore energy exploration would be used to fund investments in clean energy technologies.
"We all want cleaner sources of fuel and more efficient energy use, but this cap and trade bill is not the right way forward," Capito commented.
Wilson said members of the House "worked very hard to come up with the kind of energy reform bill that will both reduce greenhouse gases and lead our country to energy independence."
"Both are goals that I support," he continued. "Progress on the bill in the House was encouraging, but I felt it didn't go far enough to protect energy consumers and industries in my district. I believe that coal must and will play a major role in our nation's transition to energy independence."
Wilson noted that 86 percent of Ohio's electricity comes from coal.
"And the vast majority of that coal comes from Appalachian Ohio," he said. "Because we are located in an area of the country that heavily relies on coal to turn on the lights and heat our homes, Ohio families and her energy intensive industries - like steel - will bear the brunt of the cost from this version of climate change legislation."
The Congressional Budget Office has released estimates showing that the proposed "cap and trade" provisions of the climate bill would cost $22 billion a year by 2020.
It's assumed by the CBO that these costs would be passed on to consumers, with the projected price being $175 per household annually.
But the costs would be greater is such states as West Virginia and Ohio, where more than 98 percent of energy is produced from coal. Likewise, the cost would be less in California, where much less coal is used.
