The “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”, as passed by the House, is a whopping 1,428 pages. Like most, I have not read the entire bill. Instead, I focused on the part near and dear to the hearts of those Americans in major coal-producing states like Kentucky. Sections 111 through 116 of the bill detail the government’s proposed program to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions through the use of carbon capture and sequestration i.e. “clean coal” technology. The “clean coal” program outlined in this bill is supposedly intended to preserve the environment and provide future energy security. Instead it is full of grand ideas that provide a unique opportunity for Americans all across the political spectrum to come together and spit on it.
I don’t have enough space in my column to detail everything that is wrong with this program, so I’m going to cover a few of the lowlights now and get into other issues in future articles.
The first thing that caught my eye was the creation of the Carbon Storage Research Corporation. This corporation is designed to help fund research and implementation of “clean coal” technology. “Clean coal” is composed of two basic parts, capturing harmful CO2 and then storing it underground - sequestration. This technology is currently expensive on the capture side and fraught with future environmental liabilities on the storage side. Kentucky already has problems with the storage of coal by-products. According to a story reported locally by WHAS, the EPA has stated that Kentucky has seven “potentially highly hazardous” coal ash sites near significant populations. There is virtually no guarantee that “clean coal” will ever be economically viable or environmentally safe, yet our legislators are proposing the establishment of a corporation to pursue it anyway; the key here word is propose, not create. According to Congress here’s how the decision to actually establish the Corporation will be made.
“Upon approval of those persons representing two-thirds of the total quantity of fossil fuel-based electricity delivered to retail consumers, the Corporation shall be established unless opposed by the State regulatory authorities…If 40 percent or more of the State regulatory authorities submit to the independent auditing firm written notices of opposition, the Corporation shall not be established”
Gee, it’s a good thing there won’t be any conflicts of interest or acrimonious debate. Otherwise, establishing the Corporation could be an ugly business. What happens if state regulators shoot down the Corporation? Let’s assume that doesn’t happen for a moment and get to the really fun stuff.
The Corporation, a non-governmental agency, must collect “assessments”, a euphemism for taxes, of at least $1 billion annually for a period of ten years. Again, the legislation speaks for itself.
“The Corporation is authorized to adjust the assessments on fossil fuel-based electricity to reflect changes in the expected quantities of such electricity from different fuel types, such that the assessments generate not less than $1.0 billion and not more than $1.1 billion annually. The Corporation is authorized to supplement assessments through additional financial commitments.”
So, the next logical question is, “How will the Corporation spend the money”? According to the legislation, “Up to 5 percent of the funds collected in any fiscal year under subsection (d) may be used for the administrative expenses of operating the Corporation (not including costs incurred in the determination and collection of the assessments.” In case you are wondering, subsection (d) is the $1 billion collected from the public which means that up to $50 million annually can go for things like salaries, rent, and possibly copier paper. Of course, for a mere pittance like that the professional staff will probably have to moonlight for some other organization. I quote once more, “The Board shall appoint an Executive Director and professional support staff who may be employees of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).” In case anybody asks, EPRI is a private power industry consulting organization. Okay that covers the first 5 percent; what about other 95?
Thankfully, the House saw fit to make board meetings open to the public so we can see where all that money is going.
“The Corporation Board’s meetings shall be open to the public and shall occur after at least 30 days advance public notice. Meetings of the Board of Directors may be closed to the public where the agenda of such meetings includes only confidential matters pertaining to project selection, the award of grants or contracts, personnel matters, or the receipt of legal advice.”
In other words, if the Board meets to discuss their bracket picks in the NCAA tournament, or where to go on their next vacation, we’re all invited. Otherwise, we’re out of luck. If the Board is not going to discuss any or all of the issues listed above, why would they bother to have a meeting in the first place? Not exactly a lot of sunshine in this law.
I believe in the urgent need to invest in renewable energy for a whole host of reasons. However, we need to be smart and look at the return on investment for each alternative. I’ve only analyzed a small fraction of the Waxman-Markey Act in this article. I sincerely hope this bill gets a whole lot more scrutiny from people more qualified than an accountant from Kentucky. It certainly seems to need it.
Comments
You probably have analyzed his bill more thoroughly than any member of Congress, and have done a great job.
The only hope for this bill is that the Senate will kill it.
Mr. Skillings should limit his writing to subjects he actually understands. For example:
1.) There is no connection between carbon capture and storage (CCS) and coal combustion products like ash. The issues surrounding them are completely unrelated.
2.) You complain about the assessments being a new tax and then complain that states are given the opportunity to reject it? Make up your mind.
3.) EPRI is not a private consulting firm. It's an independent, non-profit research institute operating in the public interest, providing unbiased information that is widely respected globally for its objectivity.
4.) Allocating 5% for administrative costs of a $1 billion-a-year corporation is well below the average for most such organizations.
5.) The language about open and closed meetings is standard for government. If you were an experienced journalist, you'd know this.
6.)CO2 capture technology already works. Now we need to reduce costs and solve issues around storage.
To JB
1) I did not say that coal ash was produced by carbon capture. What I did imply is that the power industry has some very real problems handling the storage of the by-products they currently produce. The real issue here is future environmental liability - in both cases.
2)I was pointing out that there is no fall-back position in this bill if the states reject it. YOU made the connection with "tax" issue, not me.
3)Isn't the chairman of EPRI also the chairman of Great Plains Energy? Wasn't the CEO of EPRI an executive with GE for thirty years? Isn't GE likely to be a major contractor i.e. beneficiary of this project? Explain to me the "independent" part again.
4) I'm not interested in how other organizations waste their money, only how this organization wastes mine.
5) The Act specifically states that the Corporation is not a government entity. Project selection i.e. what to spend the public's money on is a public matter - period.
- The author
It is nice to see that people are engaging in the debate over this very important piece of legislation. I sincerely hope that everyone will take the time to read the legislation itself and consult a wide range of industry and environmental experts before drawing any conclusions. Thanks for reading!
- The author
I am surprised , after much searching , that NO environmentalists have stumbled upon the fact that CO2 , pumped into the ground , mixing in with the aquafiers , will taint the water therein turning it to a weak acid ( carbonic acid ) making it gradually unsuitable for drinking or irrigation purposes . Why is this aspect of underground CO2 storage totally ignored . Tells me that no science is being used to push this agenda , just the almighty buck , and whom can make how much , on the backs of the people of the USA , to their detriment . This is all so insane. Bureucrats in charge of our lives and pocketbooks . If HR 2454 is not soundly trounced by the Senate I will be GREATLY disappointed , in their lack of common sense and concern for other than a new source of revenue . This is all obviously just a new tax to support the parasite called the US Gov't
Carbon capture and storage is a pipe dream, as is the notion that coal is somehow "clean." CCS has never been proven on a commercial scale and is being used by coal companies to construct "capture-ready" coal plants. Problem is, these plants won't be ready to capture carbon for upwards of another 50 years or so.
Why spend all this money on a pipe dream, when we can use existing technology that can easily produce electricity from unlimited sources like the sun and wind?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!