Home < Back

Boucher seeks changes in cap-and-trade

KINGSPORT — U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher voted for cap-and-trade legislation but said he doesn’t endorse the House-passed version of the bill.

The Abingdon Democrat, in a meeting with members of the Times-News Editorial Board, explained his vote on the controversial and complex climate change bill designed to enable the federal government to cap industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislation would cap total annual emissions and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to the emissions permitted under that cap beginning in 2012.

Each allowance would entitle industries to emit the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon dioxide, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO says those allowances could be saved or “banked” by market participants indefinitely to be used or sold in future years.

Based on information supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the CBO estimates about 7,400 facilities would be affected by the legislation.

The climate change bill aims to reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 relative to a 2005 baseline, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

“I voted for it because I had to do that to be part of the process and to make the changes that have been made,” Boucher said of the bill that passed by a seven-vote margin in the House and is now being considered by the Senate.

Boucher stressed his interest in climate change has not been driven by a moral belief to control greenhouse gases.

What is driving his involvement, said Boucher, is the U.S. Supreme Court determined two years ago that greenhouse gases are pollutants.

“As a consequence of that decision, the Environmental Protection Agency is, for all intents and purposes, effectively required to regulate greenhouse gases, ...” Boucher said. “The debate about whether or not we will have regulation is over. So the only question is will EPA regulate or ... will we have congressional regulation that does balance economic effect against environmental effect? Given that choice, industry would rather have Congress do this. Industry needs and wants a bill to pass.”

He said lawmakers have “no political will” to mandate the EPA to do a cost-benefit analysis on climate change legislation.

Boucher instead pointed out the climate change bill’s supporters include American Electric Power (AEP) and Dominion Power.

But a Wall Street Journal story published last Thursday said the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), which represents AEP and lobbies for the utility, suggested the House bill “does not adequately protect consumers and the domestic economy.”

In a follow-up conversation, Boucher stood by his statement, and his press office forwarded an AEP position paper supporting the legislation.

“AEP will support constructive amendments that further enhance the bill, and we will continue to work with members of the House and Senate to improve the legislation,” said Anthony P. Kavanagh, AEP’s vice president of governmental affairs.

When asked to explain the difference in AEP’s and ACCCE’s positions, Boucher said: “That (ACCCE) group is very broad-based. It’s got electric utilities. ... Some support the House bill; some don’t. It’s got coal companies in it. It has manufacturers associated with the coal industry. It is a very broad-based group of coal stakeholders. ... It was organized around achieving acceptable climate change control. ... They really want improvements in the House bill. ... They are withholding endorsement while working with the Senate to try to make sure the Senate’s version is more to their liking.”

The Southwest Virginia congressman said he spent more than six weeks helping to rewrite the draft bill to help coal-powered utilities and coal producers in his district.

He pointed to “four key things” inserted in the bill.

First, Boucher said, was making sure emission allowances were assigned for free and not put up for auction by the federal government.

“That helps to keep electricity prices affordable and strengthens the case for utilities to continue to use coal,” he said.

Secondly, Boucher said the bill now includes 2 billion tons of carbon offsets available to industrial emitters to help them satisfy their reduction obligations.

“That means an electric utility burning coal will not have to reduce the emissions at the plant site. It can just keep burning coal,” he explained.

The third provision is a $1 billion per year special fund to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies for controlled disposal or storage.

In the fourth provision, there is another special fund created to deploy the carbon capture and sequestration technology.

“Carbon capture and sequestration attached to coal still makes coal the cheapest fuel,” Boucher asserted.

Boucher claimed a National Association of Manufacturers analysis — which indicates the climate change bill would kill thousands of jobs and cause energy prices to spike — is “deeply suspicious.”

He pointed to an EIA analysis indicating the legislation will cost a typical family 23 cents a day in more electricity costs.

Boucher added the easy thing for him to do with the cap-and-trade bill would have been to just vote no.

“And I could have done that,” he said. “But that would have been a cowardly thing to do, and it would not have served well the interests of the district I represent with its large coal industry and the fact that so much of the electricity we consume is coal-generated. ... I would have been out of the debate.”