Don't make clean energy political or partisan
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
By: Sue Myrick

As the summer months approach, you've probably noticed gas prices starting to inch up. Your utility bill is probably doing the same thing as you cool your home. Well, what if I told you that Congress is considering a bill that will drive these prices higher, while putting more Americans out of work?

The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.  As a member of this committee, I wanted to vote for this bill. There were several parts of it I agreed with, and I had hoped we could move forward in solving our energy challenges in a more deliberate and responsible manner. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

The key goal of this bill was to decrease carbon emissions through something called cap and trade. Essentially, the government will cap the annual carbon emissions allowed by companies in certain economic sectors. Over time, these caps will decrease, and will prompt companies to find other ways to produce their products with less carbon emissions, in theory reducing overall pollution. If a company does not emit all of its allotted carbon emissions, it can sell its unused credits to entities that have exceeded their emission limits.

In reality, it's just a tax. Cap and trade increases the cost that companies will pay for doing business, costs that will be passed along to consumers.  The National Black Chamber of Commerce released a study that indicates the ACES bill would increase the average family's annual electricity bill by $390. The Heritage Foundation found the annual cost increase would be $1,500 for a family of four. Both studies show that this measure would destroy 2.5 million jobs. Industries that emit greenhouse gases in the U.S. could simply relocate to areas with less stringent regulations, sending more jobs offshore.

Energy policy isn't - and should not be - a partisan issue. Yet, the members of the majority on the committee consistently opposed amendments from minority members that would have stopped the carbon caps if jobs losses reached certain levels, or if consumer electricity rates increased by certain percentages, the last being if utility bills increased by 100 percent.  If utility rates increase by 100 percent and thousands of people are losing their jobs because of carbon caps, shouldn't something be re-evaluated? Why do this if it's just going to further erode our economy?

The ACES bill also establishes a new carbon futures market - similar to the oil market many of the bill's proponents cited as the reason for last year's price spike.  When questionable trading in futures markets has been widely blamed for driving up energy prices in the past, as well as a component of our current economic problems, it makes no sense for the government to set up a similar market to function as a price discovery mechanism for carbon emissions.

If the goal of this bill is to produce emissions free energy and create jobs, what better way than nuclear power? Nuclear energy is free of carbon emissions. Building a nuclear power plant creates 2,000 well-paying construction jobs; operating one requires an average of 800 employees. In fact, Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace International, has consistently stated that we cannot have a serious discussion about reducing our carbon footprint without nuclear power. It is short-sighted and irresponsible to tackle any energy legislation without its inclusion.

Everyone agrees that the use of clean, alternative energy is our goal, but it's not going to happen overnight.  We need to use traditional hydrocarbon resources as a bridge between the energy needs of today and alternative supplies of tomorrow. We're working to develop and expand the use of solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, biomass, hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in electric hybrids. But until the technology is developed and made commercially viable, our economy will rely on traditional energy resources.

It is clear that we can achieve our energy goals without damaging our economy. These solutions shouldn't increase your cost of living and put Americans out of work. Common sense says that we should be able to use our own energy resources and develop the technology behind the alternative energies we need. This is a debate that's been going for far too long and needs to be solved with decisions in the best interest of you and our country - not solutions that cater to politics. 

Sue Myrick of Charlotte represents the 9^th District in the U.S. House.