WESTERN CAUCUS NEWS: Congress Grills Governors on Climate Plan

U.S. House and Senate Members are asking Western governors some tough questions about a climate action plan that risks tens of billions of investment dollars.  Western states need this revenue to develop new power plants than can better manage greenhouse gas emissions.

"Many of us are working hard to encourage investment in the West to support clean energy technology development, including: low-emission generation technologies and CO2 capture, transportation and sequestration and enhanced oil recovery," nearly twenty U.S. Senators and House Members representing 10 western states wrote in a letter to all Western governors this week.  "If Western states are to heed the Western Climate Initiative's call to avoid deploying virtually any new fossil-fuel plants, even with CO2 capture and sequestration, what will that do to the attractiveness of the West for investment in new CCS-enabled energy technologies?"

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI), launched in 2007 by the governors of California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona and New Mexico, called last September for the West to impose upon itself a regional greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system. Utah and Montana joined the WCI as partner states in 2008, with Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada and Wyoming joining as "observers."  Four Canadian provinces are also WCI partners.

 "This plan creates more problems for the West than it solves," said Senator John Barrasso (WY), co-author of the bicameral letter.  "Any plan that appears to exclude baseload, twenty four hour power like clean coal, nuclear, natural gas, and hydro-power will not even come close to powering the West."

The WCI model allows for virtually no new baseload power plants deployed in the West through 2020 that are powered by natural gas, clean-coal-with-carbon-capture, renewable hydropower or nuclear energy, while calling for all of the West's growing need for electricity to be met entirely by renewable technologies and demand destruction.

"WCI's recommendations are that the West utilize virtually no new baseload generation and rely entirely on mostly intermittent renewables and demand reduction to meet growing energy needs," the Members of Congress wrote. "What is the technical rationale supporting an intermittent, renewables-only fuel portfolio?  How does WCI suggest that the reserve capacity margins necessary to support the Western electricity grid be maintained and bolstered under such an approach?"

"If the West were to follow the WCI's recommendation of virtually no new power plants fueled by natural gas," they asked, "how can we facilitate the deployment of massive new wind and solar power facilities, which need fossil fuels like natural gas in order to successfully integrate into the power grid?"

"WCI is recommending that the West avoid deploying virtually any new baseload generation from fossil, nuclear or renewable hydropower – all of which are essential to long-term economic growth and job creation," the Members wrote as they asked governors a series of questions:

• "Did the WCI's job creation estimate take into account the net creation or loss of jobs in the region, or did it focus solely on the creation of self-described 'green jobs?'"
 
• "How long does WCI estimate the stimulating effect of these regulatory mandates will take to kick in?"
 
• "How will the stimulating effect be measured precisely?"
 
• "Won't certain states in the West have to bear disproportionately costs vis-à-vis other states?"
 
• "Won't such a disproportionate impact constitute a transfer of wealth from some Western states to others?  Was this transfer of wealth quantified?"

The Congressional Members also pointed to a recent independent economic analysis by Management Information Services, Inc., of Washington, D.C.  The analysis found that the WCI "would impose significant new costs and job losses on the Western United States while delivering no scientifically measurable benefit in terms of reduced global climate temperatures."

"That analysis calculated a future temperature benefit from the WCI of approximately one-ten-thousandth of one degree Celsius – a change that scientists and climatologists agree is not measurable.  We find this analysis compelling, given that the benefit calculation was based entirely on the scientific findings, assumptions and formula of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  We would appreciate your response as to how this amount of climate benefit is sufficient to justify imposing the economic costs likely to flow to consumers from the WCI?"

Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-1), Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and co-author of the letter, stated: "This plan raises a number of serious questions.  We're hoping our letter helps us to better understand the assumptions that went into this regional cap-and-trade proposal."

The Senators and Congressional representatives signing the letter to governors include:
 
Senator John Barrasso (WY)   
Senator Mike Enzi (WY)
Senator James Inhofe (OK)
Senator Orrin Hatch (UT)
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03)
Congressman Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
Congressman Elton Gallegly (CA-24)
Congressman Dean Heller (NV-02)
Congressman Wally Herger (CA-02)
Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (WY)
Congressman Dan Lungren (CA-13)
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Congressman George Radanovich (CA-19)
Congressman Denny Rehberg (MT)
Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03)
Congressman Lee Terry (NE-02)
Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01)

The Congressional Western Caucus is comprised of members of Congress committed to protecting the interests and ideals of the West.

###