The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed the House of Representatives narrowly last Friday after being largely supported by Democrats. If passed by the Senate, the bill would set a cap on carbon emissions starting in 2012 and would decrease the amount of carbon emissions by 15 percent by the year 2020.

The Kansas delegation reflected that partisan split.  Republican Reps. Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt voted against the bill, House Resolution 2454 — the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act — while Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore voted for it.

A total of 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill. The vote against it was 212. The legislation now moves to the Senate.

But there was an overriding concern shared by many Midwestern legislators. According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation would increase how much Americans have to pay for their energy by an annual average of $175 per household, though Midwestern states — including Kansas — are expected to be influenced even more by the bill. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office report on Waxman-Markey, “Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) would moderate the damage associated with climate change and, especially, the risk of significant damage, but doing so would also impose costs on the economy. In the case of carbon dioxide (CO2)—which accounts for 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions—higher costs would stem from the fact that most economic activity is based on fossil fuels, which contain carbon and, when burned, release it in the form of that gas.”

Opponents of the legislation also say that the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate downplays just how much the bill would impact American households. A conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, estimated the cost of electricity for a family of four would go up an average of $436 annually starting in 2012.

By 2035, the Heritage Foundation estimated that electricity prices would increase by 90 percent, gasoline prices by 58 percent and natural gas prices by 55 percent.

Chuck Caisley, senior director of public affairs for Kansas City Power and Light, said if the legislation became law in its current form, KCP&L customers would expect to see at least a 50 percent increase in the cost of their energy by the year 2012. Caisley said Kansans would have higher increases in their energy bills than many other states because of our great reliance on coal for energy.

“This is really a big issue for us more than the coastal states and states that are very reliant on nuclear energy,” Caisley told Kansas Liberty. “We have very cheap power in Kansas and Missouri and in other states that are higher in using coal-fired electricity. This does not only hurt our customers but it will also have a fairly devastating impact on our economy.”

Caisley said the legislation would result in KCP&L's having to generate more energy through wind energy or natural gas, and less through coal-fired plants, which would force KCP&L to retire some of its existing plants.

“So we will be taking plants that are still perfectly good in terms of making electricity, and shutting them down,” he said.

Caisley said that KCP&L was supportive of promoting clean energy, but that they would favor a much more gradual plan instead of the current bill. Caisley pointed out that additional infrastructure, such as transmission lines, would also need to be built before KCP&L could utilize energy from cleaner sources, such as wind or natural gas.

Spokespeople from Westar Energy and Sunflower Electric Power Cooperation did not have estimates on how the bill would influence their customers, but both said that the companies were following the bill closely and would have information on additional possible costs if the bill does pass the Senate.

Cindy Hertel, spokesperson for Sunflower, said she was unsure at this time whether the legislation could impact the coal-fired plant Sunflower is building in southwest Kansas.

“We will move forward with Holcomb 2 as long as it is in the best interest of our member owners,” Hertel told Kansas Liberty.

Hertel said the current coal-fired plant at Holcomb produces the lowest carbon emissions of any coal plant in Kansas, and that the expansion plant will create even less carbon emissions that the existing plant.

“However, it will still have emissions, and if the climate bill passes, we will have to pay for the allowances,” she said. “So we are concerned about the cost to our members.”

The Waxman-Markey plan allows energy providers to exceed the allowable carbon emissions if they pay for them.

Shortly after the House passed the bill, many legislators issued statements explaining their vote. Democrat Moore, who voted for the bill, said it would decrease the cost of providing energy while creating jobs.

“Changing the way we create and use energy will not only create new industries and jobs throughout the country — jobs that can’t be shipped overseas — it will revitalize our economy by making the United States a leader in the energy industry and increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” Moore said in the statement.

But Republican Jenkins, who voted against the bill, also sent out a statement in which she called the legislation an “unfair assault on Kansans.”

“Folks from Kansas don’t have the luxury of taking the subway to work,” Jenkins said in a statement. “They spend nearly 60 percent more on fuel and travel than folks living in cities on the coasts. Kansas farmers and ranchers will see their input costs skyrocket and put them at a competitive disadvantage to farmers in nations whose governments will not place these burdens on their farm. This misguided legislation will hit my constituents in Kansas the hardest.”

Jenkins isn’t the only lawmaker to point out the particularly rough time farmers will have if the bill becomes law.

Kansas State Sen. Tim Huelskamp, a Fowler Republican and a farmer, joined several other local legislators in opposing the measure. Huelskamp said the bill would place an unfair burden on Kansas’ many farmers.

“As a farmer, I know that increases in the prices for gasoline and diesel fuel, electricity and natural gas will significantly reduce the bottom line in agriculture,” Huelskamp said. “Under Waxman-Markey, consumer food prices will increase and net farm income will drop significantly. It is a dangerous proposal we can’t afford.” 

Resources

• CBO Report : http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapTradeCosts.htm

• Rep. Moore statement: http://www.moore.house.gov/nr.asp?nr_id=627

• Sen. Huelskamp statement: http://www.huelskamp.org/waxmanmarkey.html

• Testimony from Heritage Foundation representative on impact of Waxman-Markey: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062309a.cfm

The Week in Review