American Clean Energy And Security Act Would Have Boosted The Economy At Minimal Cost To Consumers

The ad cites House Roll Call Vote #477 on June 26, 2009, in which the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The claim that ACES would “cost Kentucky 35,000 jobs” comes from a study of the bill by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation.

Reuters: Experts Say House-Passed Clean Energy Bill Would Have “Only A Modest Impact On Consumers.” According to Reuters: “A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers, adding around $100 to household costs in 2020. Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will rise $134 in 2020 and $339 in 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration, the country’s top energy forecaster. The EIA estimate was in line with earlier projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which said average families would pay about $175 extra annually by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which said families would pay at most an extra $1 per day.” [Reuters, 8/5/09]

CBO Estimated Cost Of ACES In 2020 Would Be $175 Per Household Per Year. From the Congressional Budget Office: ‘”Although the analysis examines the effects of the bill as it would apply in 2020, those effects are described in the context of the current economy that is, the costs that would result if the policies set for 2020 were in effect in 2010. On that basis, CBO estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion or about $175 per household.” [CBO.gov, 6/20/09]

• CBO: Energy Costs Would Actually Decrease For Low-Income Households. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, if the bill were implemented, “households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.” [CBO.gov, 6/19/09]

Study: Clean Energy Legislation Would Create Jobs, Boost GDP. According to an analysis by the University of California, Berkley: “Comprehensive clean energy and climate protection legislation, like the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that was passed by the House of Representatives in June, would strengthen the U.S. economy by establishing pollution limits and incentives that together will drive large-scale investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. These investments will result in stronger job growth, higher real household income, and increased economic output than the U.S. would experience without the bill. New analysis by the University of California shows conclusively that climate policy will strengthen the U.S. economy as a whole. Full adoption of the ACES package of pollution reduction and energy efficiency measures would create between 918,000 and 1.9 million new jobs, increase annual household income by $487-$1,175 per year, and boost GDP by $39 billion-$111 billion. These economic gains are over and above the growth the U.S. would see in the absence of such a bill.” [University of California, Berkeley, accessed 5/14/12]

Obama Was Speaking About A Hypothetical Cap-And-Trade Bill, Not The One Chandler Supported

Obama Described A General Cap-And-Trade Scheme. During a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, then-Sen. Obama stated: “But this notion of no coal I think is an illusion, because the fact of the matter is is that right now, we are getting a lot of our energy from coal and China’s building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do, then, is we have to figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon, and how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then, you know, we’re going to still be working on alternatives. […] Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is more—that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there. I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are placed– imposed every year.  So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.” [Obama Interview Statement via SFGate.com, 1/17/08]

ACES Would Have Allowed New Coal Plants But Required Them To Adopt Carbon Capture. From Grist.org’s explanation of the American Clean Energy and Security Act:

• New coal plants could be built between 2009 and 2020, though they would be expected to adopt carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technologies when they become commercially available
• By 2025, all coal plants built after 2009 would have to capture 50 percent of their CO2 emissions
• Coal plants built after 2020 would have to capture 65 percent of CO2
• Early movers on CCS would be rewarded — for every ton of CO2 it sequesters, an electric utility that gets at least half its power from coal would receive bonus emission permits for 10 years
• $1 billion would go toward CCS demonstration and deployment each year, funded by a fee on consumers of fossil-based electricity

[Grist.org, 6/4/09]

Center For Climate And Energy Solutions: Because Of Carbon Capture, ACES Will “Maintain A Significant Role For Coal In The U.S. Energy Supply.” From the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (formerly the Pew Center for Global Climate Change): “The United States and the rest of the world cannot avoid dangerous climate change without reducing GHG emissions from coal use. The ACES Act establishes a regulatory framework to enable investments in coal power plants coupled with CCS and provides significant financial incentives for demonstration and widespread deployment of CCS. The deployment of CCS under the ACES Act will spur increased investment in new coal-fueled power generation, maintain a significant role for coal in the U.S. energy supply, and allow the U.S. to dramatically reduce its power sector GHG emissions while leading the rest of the world in developing and deploying a critical low-carbon technology. While China and other major coal-reliant nations are also taking steps to develop CCS, the major advances the ACES Act would make in deploying CCS in the United States would greatly facilitate the widespread global adoption of CCS and thus achievement of global GHG emission reduction goals.” [C2ES.org, August 2009]