Last May, 300 constituents showed up to a clean energy town hall meeting with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) at the university. The meeting, put together by my student group UMD for Clean Energy and others, was set up to discuss the need for clean energy and climate legislation. Now, just several months later, the American Clean Energy and Security Act has already passed in the House of Representatives (though by the narrow margin of 219-212), and the Senate is working on its version of the bill.
One thing the bill does well is create jobs. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the bill will generate about 1.7 million green jobs, 871,000 of which are accessible to low-skilled workers. Maryland will gain 26,500 new jobs. While more and more jobs are exported overseas, this legislation would not only add to a burgeoning industry but also provide jobs to Americans.
Secondly, the bill pragmatically implements energy efficiency standards and new building codes. Without even changing our lifestyle consumption patterns, we will be reducing our dependence on dirty energy and lowering our utility costs simultaneously.
For example, even though the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated the bill would cost the average household $80 to $111 per year, “families would actually spend less on utility bills in 2020 than they would in the absence of legislation because of the energy efficiency provisions in ACES.” According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the energy efficiency provisions will save the average household $700 by 2020 and $3,900 by 2030.
We already have these more efficient technologies; we simply need to implement them.
Despite the numerous benefits of ACES, UMD for Clean Energy would like to see a stronger Senate bill. The bill’s short-term greenhouse gas emissions target is a 17-percent reduction below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, equivalent to 3 percent below 1990 levels, is very weak. The science tells us that 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels is necessary by 2020 to avert catastrophic climate change. Additionally, a low target makes negotiating a global treaty in the climate talks in Copenhagen this December quite difficult, and getting a strong treaty all but impossible. We would like to see this emissions target strengthened.
In addition, the Senate bill should raise the Renewable Energy Standards and energy efficiency standards. Before compromises were made, the House legislation had a 25 percent standard, and a 15 percent energy efficiency standard by 2020. This was watered down to a 20 percent RES, 5 percent of which can come from improved energy efficiency. We would like to see a more ambitious RES that matches our capability and ingenuity.
Lastly, excluding investments in “clean coal” technology, the House bill will commit around $10 billion a year from 2012 to 2015 to clean energy development and deployment. This pales in comparison to the clean energy investment from the economic stimulus. Although we recognize the bill will drive private sector investment, other countries such as China are spending much larger amounts by comparison. Increasing clean energy spending in the bill is imperative for accelerating our transition to a clean energy economy.
There will be a lot of politicking and lobbying by special interests in the coming months on the Senate legislation. It’s important that state residents and students make their voices heard by contacting our two senators, Ben Cardin (D) and Barbara Mikulski (D). We need to demand a stronger bill that reduces emissions faster, produces more clean energy, and invests more in developing clean energy technologies in America, not China. Better, faster, stronger.
Kenny Frankel is the media director for the student group UMD for Clean Energy. He can be reached at kfrankel88 at gmail dot com.
