Energy companies say, 'Tax us, please!'
Xcel's CEO among those calling for a tax on carbon
by Neal St. Anthony, Star-Tribune
Dick Kelly, CEO of Xcel Energy Inc., is irked that Congress hasn't raised his taxes.
"We need a price on carbon," said Kelly, who runs a multistate utility in the vanguard of next-generation efficiency and cleaner-energy programs.
Kelly, Duke Power CEO Jim Rogers and other utility executives have been expecting Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which would effectively place a tax on carbon emissions. Both Xcel and Duke have moved expeditiously in recent years to modernize old coal-fired plants, switch to wind and natural gas, and implement conservation programs in a bid to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by up to 25 percent by 2025 and meet state mandates to reduce pollutants that climate scientists say lead to global warming.
"The industry could have worked with the 'Kerry-Lieberman' bill in the Senate, but the Republicans backed away and started calling it 'cap-and-tax,'" Kelly said.
(More here.)
by Neal St. Anthony, Star-Tribune
Dick Kelly, CEO of Xcel Energy Inc., is irked that Congress hasn't raised his taxes.
"We need a price on carbon," said Kelly, who runs a multistate utility in the vanguard of next-generation efficiency and cleaner-energy programs.
Kelly, Duke Power CEO Jim Rogers and other utility executives have been expecting Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which would effectively place a tax on carbon emissions. Both Xcel and Duke have moved expeditiously in recent years to modernize old coal-fired plants, switch to wind and natural gas, and implement conservation programs in a bid to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by up to 25 percent by 2025 and meet state mandates to reduce pollutants that climate scientists say lead to global warming.
"The industry could have worked with the 'Kerry-Lieberman' bill in the Senate, but the Republicans backed away and started calling it 'cap-and-tax,'" Kelly said.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Remember those comments when Boehner, Kline, et al talk about business facing uncertainty … Business want action so that they know what the rules are.
A few months ago, it was reported that sixty Fortune 500 companies, electric utilities and environmental and labor groups urged the White House and US Senate leaders to move legislation to set climate change and energy policy that will create jobs as it transitions the US economy to low-emission energy. The businesses signing the letter said they represent revenues of about $1.2 trillion (?971 billion) and more than 1 million employees. They include Google, GE, Ford Motor Company and United Technologies.
The Edison Electric Institute, which lobbies on behalf of investor-owned utilities, as well as the merchant energy group the Electric Power Supply Association, also signed the letter. Individual utilities signing on included AEP, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, Exelon, FPL Group and PG&E.
Boehner wants a moratorium on regulations for one year … further, Boehner and Kline are backing legislation that would change how regulations are implemented. Instead of a 60-day window for public review with Congress having the legislative authority to change it, the proposed legislation would REQUIRE a new vote on Major Rules. I wrote a commentary citing examples during the Bush Administration how regulations saved monies. Recently, EPA issued for public review a proposed rule on sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The costs are estimated at $2.8 billion ... and existing technology will be used ... and many producers are using this technology … the savings (per the EPA) “Today’s action would yield more than $120 billion in annual health benefits in 2014, including avoiding an estimated 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.9 million days when people miss school or work due to ozone- and particle pollution-related symptoms. These benefits would far outweigh the annual cost of compliance with the proposed rule, which EPA estimates at $2.8 billion in 2014.”
Post a Comment
<< Home