The 1,500-page climate change bill that has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting its day in the Senate promises to leave less change in the pockets of the public, according to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, and industry experts.
According to Goodlatte and the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, the changes proposed in the legislation would have adverse affects on farmers who they say would suffer from higher input costs. Home builders say they will be hurt because it will cost more for them to implement stricter energy-efficient standards.
“I think it’s going to have a harmful effect on our entire economy,” Goodlatte said Wednesday. “And it’s going to have a profound effect on us growing out of this economic crisis we’re in.”
The bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., places caps on greenhouse gas emissions, with electric utilities required to either upgrade their technologies or buy credits, or allowances, for each ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent that they emit.
It places limits on greenhouse gas emissions beginning in 2012 and requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their energy demand through renewable resources by 2020.
Other key provisions in the bill include investing in clean energy technologies while mandating energy-saving standards for buildings and appliances. The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050. It requires that consumers be protected from rising energy costs.
The bill has wide support from many industry and environmental groups, but bill opponents have been critical of the last-minute deal-making and a last-minute 300-page addendum that they said received little debate.
Its cost to consumers has also been the subject of much debate.
The Obama administration has pegged the cost of this legislation to the American public at less than $100 per family and the Congressional Budget Office at $175 per family by 2020.
However, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, puts the per-family cost much higher, at nearly $3,000. More near-term estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency put the cost at $80-$120 per family.
Wilmer Stoneman, associate director of governmental relations for the Farm Bureau, said with large poultry and dairy farms in the Shenandoah Valley, those farmers would be forced to pay more for electricity, which constitutes a large portion of their input costs.
The barns for poultry farmers use electricity for lights, fans and feed machines, Stoneman said, while for dairy farmers, milking machines, “cost a lot in electricity to run.”
“Basically, it’s just an energy tax,” Stoneman said.
He conceded that a late addition to the bill to allow for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to oversee the carbon-offset program for farmers would help, but still, he opposes the overall legislation.
He is unsure what the Senate will do now that Minnesota’s Al Franken gives Democrats a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority, though he admitted to being surprised at how close the vote was (219-212) in the House.
“I hope they take a good long look at it,” Stoneman said. “This is a life-changing and an economy-changing piece of legislation. There isn’t a human being that won’t be touched by this legislation because ultimately, energy costs are inherent in everything that we do.”
Goodlatte, who voted against the legislation, said it raises taxes while eliminating jobs. Input costs for farmers, he said, will jump as a result.
“Agriculture is an energy intensive industry,” Goodlatte said, “and this legislation will make the cost of energy even higher for everyone.”
Goodlatte said the bill includes too many government regulations and mandates that don’t allow for coal or nuclear energy, which account for nearly 70 percent of U.S. energy use, to be included as an option.
However, Democrat Rep. Rick Boucher, who represents the coal region in southwest Virginia, won concessions to keep coal in the mix, saying its use is projected to increase by 2020 and would still be “the fuel of choice” to meet rising energy demand.
Also, the bill’s support of clean energy sources includes nuclear power, according to a summary of the bill put out by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill also has an adverse effect on the home building industry, according to Michael Toalson, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Virginia.
Toalson said the bill would require all new homes to be 50 percent more efficient than current code requirements by 2014, and 75 percent more efficient by 2029.
He said that is possible for builders to meet, but it would come at a steep cost. He said there is only so much that can be done to make homes more energy efficient without upgrades to heating, ventilation and air conditioning, or HVAC, systems.
“It’s possible there, but the costs would be so much that many middle income families won’t be able to afford it,” Toalson said.
It means, he said, that more families will have to buy existing, rather than new, homes, which may not be as energy efficient and are likely less safe.
The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute in Arlington, which opposes the legislation, says higher efficiency HVAC systems would “tend to be more expensive” under the new legislation.
The Senate is expected to be more deliberative in discussions, but discussions there aren’t expected for several months.
“The Senate is nowhere near as far along on this issue as the House is,” Goodlatte said.
