Looks like switching to a clean energy economy might just save the US economy too. The CBO scoring of the financial impact of the the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act has just been completed. As Senator Boxer put it in a statement on her website tonight “The CBO score shows that there is a way to design a clean energy and climate bill that is fiscally responsible and gets the job done – while protecting the health of our families and the planet.”
Indeed. The House version would drop the deficit $9 billion while reducing greenhouse gases 17% by 2020. The Senate bill goes one better. CEJAPA reduces the deficit $21 Billion while reducing GHGs 20% by 2020.
Auction revenues from cap and trade would be deposited into 10 new funds established by the legislation. Spending from those funds would not require any further appropriation action (read: filibuster!) CBO’s estimate of direct spending by these ten funds during the first ten years includes:
The Energy Refund Account $112 billion: would provide financial
assistance to low- and moderate-income households and is intended to offset the
impact of the bill on energy prices;
The Climate Change Transportation Fund $16 billion: would enable
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide grants to states to support
activities that would reduce GHG emissions;
The Supplemental Agriculture, Abandoned Mine Land, Renewable Energy, and
Forestry Fund $9 billion: would enable the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of the Interior (DOI) to establish programs supporting
agricultural and forestry projects that reduce or sequester GHGs;
The Worker Transition Fund $4 billion: would enable the Department
of Labor (DOL) to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs as a result of
the measures their employers take to comply with the provisions of the bill;
The Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Account $4 billion:
would enable DOI and other federal agencies to support state adaptation activities,
including activities to protect fish and wildlife, reduce the risk of wildfires, and
maintain and restore coastal habitats and ecosystems;
The Clean Vehicle Technology Fund $3 billion: would enable EPA to
provide grants to manufacturers and component suppliers to refurbish or expand
existing manufacturing facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles and to
support engineering integration of certain vehicles and components, and to enable
DOE to provide support for a national transportation low-emission energy plan;
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Fund $1 billion:
would enable DOE to provide funding for grants to support training for
jobs in the energy-efficiency industry and a national research program;
The Nuclear Worker Training Fund $1 billion: would enable DOE and
DOL to provide grants and other support for workforce development and training
related to nuclear energy;
The Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Fund $1 billion:
would enable the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement
a national strategic action plan to respond to the impact of climate change on
A Consumer Rebate Fund would be developed to begin consumer rebates beginning in 2026.
At the beginning of November, Senator Inhofe led a Republican walkout boycotting this bill. The objection? The CBO hadn’t scored it. Senator Boxer said it was a waste of money because it would be no worse for the economy than the House bill (ACES, or Waxman-Markey) which did not add to the deficit, but reduced it.
Now that the CBO has scored it, and found that it works even better than the House bill, Senator Inhofe has more important work to do this week. He must explain to the rest of the world at Copenhagen all about the “hoax” of global warming.
Image: Tom Chamberlain
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Autonomous Drones for Better Farming
I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it! We just don't like paywalls, and so we've decided to ditch ours. Unfortunately, the media business is still a tough, cut-throat business with tiny margins. It's a never-ending Olympic challenge to stay above water or even perhaps — gasp — grow. So ...