Over the last few months, the US Senate has discussed several different proposals dealing with energy and climate change.  The major points of conflict have been whether to place a cap on carbon emissions, put a price carbon pollution and to what sectors of the economy these caps and prices would apply (i.e. electric utilities/power plants, transpiration and manufacturing). The American Power Act (APA) remains the Senate’s most comprehensive option, placing a cap on and pricing carbon in all sectors, however, meetings held by Majority Leader Reid and the White House with key swing Senators have left the door open for other, more scaled back options.

Why a comprehensive bill matters:

Only 40% of all carbon emissions in the US come from electricity generation meaning that an energy-only bill would  still leave 60% of emissions sources untouched. The sources contributing to that 60% are as addressable if not more readily addressable than electricity generation.

Transportation is the second largest producer of carbon emissions, with cars and light duty trucks contributing 2/3 of all transportation emissions. Transportation is the major component of our country’s dependence on foreign oil. Until vehicle efficiency standards are addressed, we will continue to export as much as $1 billion per day to other nations for their petroleum.

Industrial activity, including manufacturing, construction and mining, ranks as the third highest source., with residential and commercial buildings taking up the last slices of the of total US emissions pie.  Most, if not all of these sectors would benefit from market  incentives  to implement readily available efficiency upgrades.

New Hampshire and 9 other northeastern states already have an effective electric utility emissions pricing program.

Why pricing carbon matters:

The APA would restrict the amount of carbon an entity can produce and let them trade allowances giving them an economic incentive to become more efficient. The APA would also set the price of carbon at $12 – $25 per ton and increase by 5% each year, providing further incentives to de-carbonize over time.

What the final product of discussions in the Senate and White House will be is still coming into focus. We wanted to take a quick inventory at where our Senators stand (or have stood) on various pieces of climate change and clean energy legislation.

Gregg: Sen. Greg had previously supported comprehensive bills including the Climate Stewardship Acts of 2003 and 2005. Also in 2003, Gregg co-sponsored the Clean Air Planning Act, a bill that would have capped power plant emissions including carbon dioxide. Recently he has been quoted as not supporting of any cap on carbon emissions suggesting that providing incentives for all sectors to move towards lower emissions would achieve the same goal. In an NHPR interview last year Gregg expressed that he would have not supported the US House’s American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.k.a. Waxman-Markey bill), but he does believe aggressive action needs to be taken on the issue of climate change and our dependence on foreign oil. He  cites vehicle efficiency and nuclear energy as two immediately available options to cut emissions and oil consumption.

Shaheen: Sen. Shaheen has publicly supported efforts towards a comprehensive climate bill and has spoken out against an energy only approach. She has advocated that a price on carbon is necessary to create certainty in markets. She and the other democrat senate freshmen signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday July 16, which outlined their support of an “all of the above” comprehensive bill that prices carbon pollution and provides incentives for efficiency and investment in new technology.