A just-released analysis from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the cap on carbon pollution in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) can be achieved for $83 per year per household – or a dime a day per person.

One of the reasons it’s so affordable is that increases in consumers’ electricity and natural gas bills are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies.

Nat Keohane, EDF’s director of economic policy and analysis, says this:

This analysis confirms what every other credible study has found, and it – once again – refutes the widely reported scare tactics about the cost of the cap and trade bill. Opponents of action will always try to cherry-pick the numbers and use models with biased assumptions. The EPA, EIA and CBO are the non-biased standard for economic analysis.

For a dime a day we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil.

The analysis also shows that the climate bill passed by the House would reduce our dependence on foreign oil – the U.S. would reduce its consumption of oil by 344 million barrels in the year 2030 alone, under the provisions of the bill. That’s a cut of more than 12 percent of predicted imports for the same year without the bill.

Other key points about the EIA analysis:

• It considers only the costs of reducing global warming pollution, and does not take into account the many potential benefits.
• It has similar findings to two other impartial and substantive studies done recently, from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office.
• A leaked draft of the EIA report, which was covered in some early media stories, contained an error. The average yearly change in consumption per household for the years 2012-2030 is $83 — NOT $142. The correct figure is in the final version.

One of the most common questions about the American Clean Energy and Security Act is, “Who will it cover?” The bill will apply to firms that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

Supporters have always said that meant the bill would only regulate big polluters. Opponents claimed that small businesses, schools, churches – even individuals – could be subject to new government rules.

Now, a new study from Duke University gives us the answer.

Turns out that the 25,000-ton threshhold includes only 1.3 percent of all U.S. manufacturing facilities – a fraction of America’s more than 350,000 sites. However, those few companies are responsible for 82.5 percent of  the manufacturing sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to Duke’s David Cooley:

Large-scale polluters are responsible for a supermajority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, so we can get enormous environmental benefits while regulating a small percentage of firms.

The bill will also apply to about half of the country’s electric power plants, but almost no farms or commercial buildings.

Who’s not on the list? No schools. No churches. No individuals. If you don’t own your own smokestack, you can pretty much count on being exempt.

EDF is proud to have provided funding for the study, which you can download from the Duke site [PDF].

We told you the opposition was turning up the heat on the climate bill, but their efforts have reached a new low.

It turns out that the lobbying firm that sent forged letters to House Democrats was working for a group that represents coal and electricity companies. The letters were made to look like they came from local advocacy groups, but they were signed by people who had nothing to do with the local groups.

And what looked like one case now involves a  dozen fraudulent letters sent to at least three members of Congress. Two of those members ended up opposing the clean energy legislation.

Get more details in the Greenwire story on the New York Times Web site, and see one of the forged letters [PDF] on the Greenwire site.

Last week, Environmental Defense Action Fund launched a hard-hitting new campaign targeting members of Congress who opposed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The ads call them out for their failure to help reduce America’s addiction to imported oil.

Steve Cochran, director of EDAF’s national climate campaign, said this:

This is a sustained campaign to educate the public. The public should know when their elected representatives vote against their interests.

Opponents of this bill have based their campaign on phony numbers and scare tactics. We’re going to beat them with the facts. As this bill moves to the Senate, we are focusing on letting constituents know who is ready to take action to cut imported oil and who just wants to talk about it.

The ads will run through the end of September, and you can see them online:
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Patrick Tiberi (R-OH)

Last week, the governors of three states from vastly different parts of the country — New Jersey, Colorado, and Washington — traveled to Washington, D.C., to show their support for the climate bill.

They appeared before the Senate to report that “efforts to curb global warming and spur the development of cleaner sources of energy have created jobs and new businesses in their states, a trend that could expand nationwide if Congress passes federal legislation.”

The governors are the newest addition to the climate bill fan club.  Small business owners, electric company CEOs, environmentalists and a majority of the House of Representatives already back climate legislation.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Jr., talked about the revitalization of an old steel town in his state. He explained the lesson “good energy policy and climate policy can energize the economy and help create good-paying private sector jobs.”

More on the hearing.

The radical right is organizing an all-out, take-no-prisoners campaign to block President Obama’s efforts to reform America’s energy policies and stop global warming. Led by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, right wing ideologues are lining up with big polluters to defeat climate action this year.

Joe Romm talks about their “passionate intensity” in a blog post today. His key points:

[T]he entire conservative messaging apparatus is full-throated in its opposition to this bill — and they have well-heeled funders, aka the dirty-energy bunch. [...]

But we should be equaling, if not beating, calls to key senators right now. [...]

Reason enough for passage of a bill with emissions targets like Waxman-Markey (preferably stronger) is to give the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen (and beyond) a fighting chance — and not to strangle a global deal in the crib as the deniers and polluters hope to do with their immoral and ultimately self-destructive filibuster.

And to prove his point, this just in from Twitter: The opposition is being extremely vocal towards Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska:

kate_sheppard RT @Populista: Ben Nelson says letters in Nebraska are running 99-1 against #ACES. Says people at parades are shouting “No cap and trade”

You can help fight back by calling your Senators today.

And if Sen. Nelson is your Senator, here are various ways to let him know you support climate action.

The Web and the Twitterverse are awash with nonsense about the clean energy bill that passed the House in late June.

The bill’s opponents are trying to scare homeowners by making them believe an energy audit or retrofit is required before they could sell their homes.  That’s nuts — the bill does nothing of the kind.  Here’s what it actually does:

• For existing homes, the bill creates incentives to encourage people to do retrofits of their homes. It doesn’t require anything.
• For new homes, the bill establishes federal guidelines for energy-efficiency labeling. It’s up to local governments whether they want to have new homes in their area labeled or not.

See more details in our fact sheet on home energy in the climate bill.

Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday, and gave an impassioned plea to include a strong, credible agricultural offsets program in Senate climate legislation:

Environmental Defense Fund believes that an effective climate solution must include US agricultural offsets. American farmers, foresters, and landowners can provide creditable emissions reductions while earning a new income stream, and we must give them that opportunity.

Fred outlined ways to create credible offsets program that would benefit the entire country – including farmers and taxpayers. He stressed that any program must be science-based and must provide real, measurable, verifiable benefits to the atmosphere.

The highlight of the hearing was a spirited exchange between Fred and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) about gas prices. (In the video of the hearing released by the committee, advance to 89:40 to see the back-and-forth.)

Of course, Fred also heaped praise on the House for passing the American Clean Energy and Security Bill, even as he told Senators they could strengthen that critical legislation even more by improving the offsets provisions.

Here’s a link to Fred’s full written testimony [PDF].

Michael Oppenheimer and I have a post up on Huffington Post that explains why cap and trade is more effective than a tax at slowing and eventually halting global warming.

Here are just the highlights:

1. Environmental certainty. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize: avoiding dangerous climate change. A legally binding cap is the only way to assure that this objective will actually be attained.
2. International opportunity. The atmosphere is indifferent to where carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is emitted. The ultimate goal, once countries like China and Brazil have adequate systems for monitoring their emissions, is a global carbon market — benefiting both the developing countries and the industrialized countries.
3. The market, not the government, sets the price. Cap and trade is a smart division of labor: Congress sets the cap, and the market sets the price on carbon needed to achieve it.
4. Political viability. In our view, cap and trade is the best policy on the merits. But it is also the politically viable path. A recent survey shows that of all regulatory approaches, the public likes taxes least.

Each of these reasons are explained in more detail on Huffington Post. Take a look and add to the comments!

Rush Limbaugh and the Dittoheads are urging their supporters to flood Capitol Hill with calls attacking those who voted yes on the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act. We need your help to fight back.

First, find out if your Rep voted yes on the bill: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-26-waxman-markey-bill-vote-count/

Then, call the Capitol Hill switchboard — (202) 224-3121. Ask to be patched through to your Rep.

Finally, tell the office staff that you strongly support the landmark climate bill and applaud the Rep. for voting to pass it.

This was a tough vote for a lot of members of Congress. But, thanks to the courage of 219 of them, we now have a chance to move America forward and create the clean energy economy we’ll need to compete in the 21st century. This bill will break our addiction to foreign oil, put millions of Americans to work, and, along with cuts from other countries, will help avert the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.

Please call your Rep now to applaud his/her vote on the landmark climate bill.