Jul 19 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Jack Torry The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio


There's a section in the bill that allows electricity companies to collect federal dollars to plant trees.

Another part mandates manufacturing energy-efficient table lamps.

And yet another provision gives the federal government the power to establish a national building code for energy conservation in new buildings if state and local governments don't upgrade their own codes.

These provisions are all in the 1,428-page global-warming bill approved last month by the House of Representatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the bill includes 397 new regulations and 1,060 new mandates.

Because the Senate is nowhere near approving its own version of the bill, these regulations may never become law. But as details of the House bill emerge, they have provoked intense criticism from conservative Republicans and business organizations.

"That bill is so bad, it's really pathetic," said Bill Kovacs, a chamber lobbyist. "I'm not sure what they thought they were accomplishing by focusing the power of the federal government on the tiniest details of life versus creating a clear path for replacing fossil fuels with cleaner technologies."

Some complaints by conservatives have been either misleading or inaccurate, including a contention by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester, that the bill would require homeowners to have an energy audit before they could sell their homes.

"John Boehner wouldn't know the truth about this clean-energy bill if it bit him in the ankle," said Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, prompting Boehner spokeswoman Jessica Towhey to reply, "No one knows the truth about this bill because no one -- not one lawmaker -- was able to read the bill before voting on it."

But there's no question that the House bill would impose a barrage of new mandates on Americans -- from regulations on outdoor streetlights to global-warming labels on new appliances to federal bonus payments for retailers who sell more energy-efficient washing machines and dishwashers.

Environmentalists and their Democratic allies in Congress defend the regulations in the House bill, saying they are needed to dramatically reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide believed to cause global warming.

They point out that the federal air pollution laws approved in 1970, 1977 and 1990 included scores of mandates and regulations. Those laws, they argue, have helped make the air cleaner while the U.S. economy has continued to boom.

The global-warming measure is "probably as good a bill that could pass the House of Representatives, even though it is highly flawed," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington-based environmental organization.

"The marketplace alone is never going to do any reductions in emissions," he said. "It will require a firm direction from the federal government if we're going to see a reduction in emissions and improvement in climate."

The bill sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It would achieve those reductions through a market-based system known as cap-and-trade, which is designed to give power companies and factories financial incentives to limit emissions of carbon dioxide.

For example, each utility plant or factory would need a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide it emits. Factories that dramatically reduce their emissions could sell the permits they no longer need to other factories or power plants unable to achieve the reductions on their own.

Among the provisions singled out for criticism is in Section 201 of the bill, which calls for 50 percent energy savings by 2015 for new homes and new commercial buildings.

States and local governments would have one year to update their building codes. If they failed, the secretary of energy could approve a new national building code for energy efficiency. If the states refused to enforce the new codes, the federal government could impose fines.

"It wouldn't be the mechanical code or the plumbing code or the structural code," said Steve Rosenstock, manager of energy solutions at the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the utility industry. "It would only be for energy efficiency."

To advocates of energy conservation, such as Lowell Ungar, director of policy for the Washington-based Alliance to Save Energy, tougher energy codes are crucial to combat global warming. He noted that buildings use about 40 percent of the energy produced in the country.

"Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions," Ungar said. "It's essential to find ways to get those savings in order to reduce the costs in meeting our climate goals."

The bill also would require by 2015 the manufacture of new outdoor lights that would use less energy, for streetlights, parking-lot lights, traffic lights and traffic signals, as well as lights at construction sites. Although the bill does not cover light bulbs for the home, it would require that, by 2012, manufacturers produce table lamps that use less electricity.

Business lobbyists seem particularly amused by a section that would authorize spending $600 million a year for bonus payments to retailers and distributors who sell energy-efficient dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, water heaters and cooking appliances.

Critics complain that the company selling the product, not the consumer, would get the bonus. In addition, if the retailer could persuade the customer to turn in his old appliance, the retailer would get paid to scrap or recycle the machine.

Even environmentalists cringe at some of the provisions. Because trees soak up carbon dioxide, planting trees can help curb global warming. But the bill provides money to electric utilities to plant trees, in partnership with either a nonprofit or a municipality.

"You're going to pay polluters to plant trees," O'Donnell complained.

jtorry@dispatch.com

"The marketplace alone is never going to do any reductions in emissions. It will require a firm direction from the federal government."

Frank O'Donnell

Clean Air Trust

(c) 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services