CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Fossil Fuels Oil_Wealth

Published on February 4th, 2010 | by Susan Kraemer

10

"Energy Only" Bill Got a Failing Score From CBO

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 4th, 2010 by
 

The recently much touted alternative “energy only” bill would not cost fossil industries, but instead would cost taxpayers $13.9 billion a year, according to this scoring by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office – that has been gathering dust since September. This failing grade from the CBO has received no publicity at all. I can’t imagine why, can you?

The bill would authorize a total of $48.6 billion over the first three years. It would add $13.5 billion each year to the deficit.

[social_buttons]

Renewable energy would share $10.4 billion of the $48 billion with electricity supply and electricity delivery funding (or a little over $3 billion a year for renewable energy).  Nuclear energy would get $5.2 billion a year, and $5.5 billion a year would go to fossil energy. The remaining $27 billion would be allocated to science programs.

The bill has no self-funding mechanism.

By contrast, revenues created by the cap and trade component in the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) would actually fund its renewable energy component, and leave some extra ($21 Billion a year) according to the Congressional Budget Office scoring in December.

To disburse its measly $16 billion-odd a year; the “energy only” bill would add a new Federal Agency: the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) to disburse these funds.

Currently, the Department of Energy is investing ten times that amount in renewable energy – $36 billion under ARRA in advanced technologies and renewable energy, led by the Nobel prizewinning Energy Secretary Steven Chu. However, Chu has been under fire from Republican members for supplying too little support for fossil and nuclear power.

Last year saw $36 billion in renewable energy funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and in the 2010 budget the administration hopes to keep funding at the current level for renewable energy.

The “energy-only” bill is co-sponsored by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) who led the attempt to overturn the recent EPA ruling on greenhouse gases, and it has strong Republican  and Chamber of Commerce support.

The funds for fossil energy in the “energy only” bill come from you and me, and maintain the status quo.

Energy-Only Bill: Cost = $13 billion annually.

The renewable funds in CEJAPA are from fossil companies who must reduce pollution or pay pollution fees.  It reduces greenhouse gases 20% by 2020, and generates an extra $21 billion each year from which renewable incentives are funded.

CEJAPA: Benefit = $21 billion annually.

I simply can’t imagine why there has been a media blackout on this very stark difference in the CBO scores between the two bills, can you?

Image: mar is sea Y

More from Susan Kraemer: Journalists on Twitter

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Angela

    It’s infuriating that corporations are allowed to pollute the commons for their personal profit and expect taxpayers to clean up after them. If they had to be responsible for the true cost of their products, including the cost of all their wars and environmental devastation, fossil fuel companies wouldn’t be able to compete with renewable sources of energy. The rest of us have to clean up after ourselves; why shouldn’t corporate persons be required to do so as well. Even the CEJAPA charges seem to be letting them off lightly.

  • Angela

    It’s infuriating that corporations are allowed to pollute the commons for their personal profit and expect taxpayers to clean up after them. If they had to be responsible for the true cost of their products, including the cost of all their wars and environmental devastation, fossil fuel companies wouldn’t be able to compete with renewable sources of energy. The rest of us have to clean up after ourselves; why shouldn’t corporate persons be required to do so as well. Even the CEJAPA charges seem to be letting them off lightly.

  • Bruce

    The only way to fund environmental improvement is through a strong economy that produces the wealth to buy it. Economies are fragile things, pull one too many cards out of the house, and down it goes. This isn’t about another “few” billion on the deficit or cap and trade’s huge net increase in taxation, this is about when we reach critical mass and the economy collapses completely. The former Soviet Union’s toxic legacy and Beijing’s legendary air pollution prove that government-simulated wealth, debt-driven, won’t power our clean conversion, it will leave people out of work burning things in the street to stay warm.

  • Bruce

    The only way to fund environmental improvement is through a strong economy that produces the wealth to buy it. Economies are fragile things, pull one too many cards out of the house, and down it goes. This isn’t about another “few” billion on the deficit or cap and trade’s huge net increase in taxation, this is about when we reach critical mass and the economy collapses completely. The former Soviet Union’s toxic legacy and Beijing’s legendary air pollution prove that government-simulated wealth, debt-driven, won’t power our clean conversion, it will leave people out of work burning things in the street to stay warm.

  • hapa

    @bruce b:

    you read the whole article wrong.

  • hapa

    @bruce b:

    you read the whole article wrong.

  • Bruce B

    Yeah, I simply can’t image why that might be…

    didn’t Inhofe pester Boxer for the CBO score of CEJAPA in December? Even though it was essentially the same as ACES?

    Now we know he must have known how badly this scored, as it was well over a month or so before! But ….crickets…

  • Bruce B

    Yeah, I simply can’t image why that might be…

    didn’t Inhofe pester Boxer for the CBO score of CEJAPA in December? Even though it was essentially the same as ACES?

    Now we know he must have known how badly this scored, as it was well over a month or so before! But ….crickets…

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    great piece. thanks for digging this up!

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    great piece. thanks for digging this up!

Back to Top ↑