The exodus from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues. A third energy company is dropping its membership over the Chamber's short-sighted opposition to the clean energy bill.

Chicago-based Exelon announced today that it will not renew its membership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That comes on the heels of last week's announcements from California's Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) that they were were leaving the Chamber.

Of course, what it really follows is the Chamber's ridiculous demands for a "Scopes Monkey Trial" to debate whether climate change is real.

The New York Times has the full story, and the Wonk Room has good quotes from Exelon's CEO, John Rowe. You can also hear John Rowe on how climate change can be addressed affordably in an ad he did with us earlier this year.

All three refugees from the Chamber are members of USCAP (as is EDF). That means they're pushing for Congress to pass a cap on carbon pollution  — a move they see as a good business opportunity.

So, if three of its biggest members see a carbon cap as a money-making opportunity, why is the Chamber of Commerce opposing it?

See this story from NPR that explores whether it's because the president of the Chamber is also on the board of directors of Union Pacific — a company that makes a large part of its money shipping coal.

The Environmental Protection Agency is ready to launch America's first comprehensive national greenhouse gas emissions reporting program.

The EPA announced today that it has finalized the requirements for its new program. That means America's biggest polluters will have to start publicly disclosing their annual emissions — data we need to create effective federal policy to fight climate change. Data collection will begin January 1, 2010, with disclosure required in the first quarter of 2011.

Mark MacLeod, an EDF expert on climate policy, praised the announcement:

The public has both a need and a right to know about the country’s biggest emitters. The transparency provided today will inform smart policy that targets the biggest sources of heat-trapping emissions.

Here are some key details about the new program:

• It will apply to about 10,000 large emitters. Those emitters are responsible for about 80-percent of all the heat-trapping gases emitted in the country.
• It sets a reporting threshold of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. That's the equivalent of 131 rail cars of coal or 58,000 barrels of oil consumed, or the emissions from the annual energy use of about 2,200 homes.
• Businesses that emit less than 25,000 tons of emission per year are NOT covered. That means the rule does NOT apply to churches or schools, as some have falsely claimed. The rule also does NOT create the totally spurious  "cow tax."
• The rule will cover the most dangerous global warming pollutants including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other fluorinated gases.

The new EPA program is based on valuable efforts that are already underway. Forty-one states are currently participating in The Climate Registry. And since 1995, fossil-fuel fired power plants over 25 megawatts in size have been subject to mandatory reporting requirements for carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. These two efforts have started providing an important database of emissions. Now the EPA program will allow us to take the next necessary step.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been one of the loudest opponents of the American Clean Energy and Security Act — in spite of the objections of some of its members. Now one of those members has decided the rift is too big to ignore. PG&E just announced that it has dropped out of the Chamber because of "fundamental differences" over climate change.

According to a PG&E blog:

• In a letter, PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee criticized the Chamber for taking an extreme position on climate change, which Darbee said does not represent the range of views among Chamber members.
• Darbee took the Chamber to task for its recent demand that there be a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" to challenge the science on climate change.
• Darbee said, "We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored."

Other companies, including Nike and Johnson & Johnson, have also criticized the Chamber for its reactionary stance on climate change.

PG&E, like EDF, is a member of USCAP — a group of corporations and environmental advocacy groups that are supporting a cap on carbon pollution.

After the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June, well-funded opposition groups went on the attack against members who voted for it.  In addition to negative TV ads, there was lots of well-publicized screaming at town hall meetings.  The conventional wisdom was that supporting the clean energy bill was a politically perilous move.

We decided to find out if that was true, and asked Hart Research to conduct some polls.

We picked three members of Congress who voted for the bill and would, according to the theory, be most likely to be hurt by the vote:  Rep. Heath Shuler,  a conservative "Blue Dog" from North Carolina; Rep. Baron Hill, a coal state moderate from southern Indiana; and Rep. Tom Perriello of Virginia, a freshman member who had the closest race in the nation in 2008.  All three are from districts won by John McCain.

The results?

All three are politically stronger for having supported the clean energy bill and its cap on carbon pollution.  By margins of 3:2 or greater, their constituents said they feel more favorably about their congressman because of his "yes" vote.  Apparently Americans like less imported oil, less pollution, and more clean energy jobs.

So, Senators take note: Clean Energy: 3, Scare Tactics: 0.

Here are more details on the polls [PPT].

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released another report showing that the costs from clean energy legislation would be small – and could help America avoid the severe economic impacts of climate change.

The report, "The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions," is based on other previous analysis.

Here are some of the CBO's main findings:

• Without policies to reduce carbon pollution, climate change will have negative and possibly severe economic impacts on the United States.
• With legislation including a cap on carbon pollution, the cost to consumers will be modest, and in line with previous independent estimates.
• Low-income families (the lowest 20 percent of households) would see purchasing power riseas a result of the House-passed clean energy bill, thanks to the allocation provisions. Higher income households would see a very small increase in costs.
• The reduction in household purchasing power, taking into account compensation from the allocation provisions, would amount to 0.1-percent in 2012 and 0.8-percent in 2050, with an average of 0.4-percent over the period 2012-2050.
• Nationally, the House legislation would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) — relative to the no-policy scenario –  by 0.2 to 0.7 percent in 2020; 0.4 to 1.1 percent in 2030; 0.7 to 2 percent in 2040; and 1.1 to 3.4 percent in 2050. At the same time, real GDP is projected to be roughly two and a half times greater in 2050 than today under either scenario. (Note that taking no action would also reduce GDP growth, perhaps to a much greater degree, because of the impacts of climate change.)
• Annual U.S. economic growth between 2010 and 2050 would be reduced by 0.03 to 0.09 percentage points, relative to a business-as-usual growth rate of 2.4 percent. (Again, this “business as usual” estimate assumes a fictional world in which climate change does not occur.)

An earlier CBO analysis [PDF] of the House clean energy bill found it would cost the average American household about as much as a postage stamp per day. Other analyses by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy found similar results.

This is the fourth study to confirm the same conclusion (other ones: EPA [PDF], CBO [PDF], EIA, ) – America can afford to pass legislation that will make us more energy independent and will help fight climate change.

In fact, we can’t afford not to.

Today's New York Times includes a fine column by Thomas Friedman, in which he explores the exploding solar panel industry. He finds to his dismay that it's all overseas. He concludes, "So, if you like importing oil from Saudi Arabia, you’re going to love importing solar panels from China."

We've been saying this for years, and it's still true: The best way to create clean energy jobs right here in the U.S. is to cap global warming pollution. Here's more on how a cap will create jobs.

There's a lot of news about the clean energy bill now that Congress is back in session, but we wanted to make sure you didn't miss this announcement: EDF has joined dozens of other groups to create the Clean Energy Works Coalition.

The five dozen groups represent more than 12 million Americans from all walks of life — faith groups, veterans groups, sportsmen, business communities and youth groups as well as environmental advocates (see the entire list below). All of them are pushing for a comprehensive clean energy and climate plan that will deliver their priorities for our future — more jobs, less pollution, and greater national security

EDF is proud to be part of this unprecedented effort. Take a look at what people are saying:

• Washington Post:  "Coalition Launches Campaign to Pass Climate Bill"
• Politico: "New Climate Coalition Launches"

We have a lot of activities planned for the next few weeks, and we'll let you know about them as they unfold.

Clean Energy Works members:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) * American Federation of Teachers * American Hunters and Shooters * American Values Network * Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now * Audubon * Blue Green Alliance * Business Forward * Campus Progress * Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good * Catholics United * Center for American Progress Action Fund * CERES * Chesapeake Climate Action Network * Clean Economy Network * Clean Water Action * Climate Protection Action Fund * Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life * Communications Workers of America * Community Action Partnership * Defenders of Wildlife * Democracia Ahora * Earth Ministry * Earthjustice * Economics for Equity and the Environment * Environment America * Environmental Defense Fund * Faithful America * Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund * Green Faith * Green for All * Jewish Council for Public Affairs * Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) * League of Conservation Voters * League of Rural Voters * League of Women Voters * Live Earth * Marianist Environmental Education Center * My Rural America * NAACP * National Security Network * National Wildlife Federation * Natural Resources Defense Council * Ohio Interfaith Power and Light * Pew Environment Group * Progressive Future * Restoring Eden * Service Employees International Union * Sierra Club * Sierra Student Coalition * Southern Energy Network * SustainUS * The Regeneration Project * The Wilderness Society * Truman National Security Project * Union of Concerned Scientists * Union for Reform Judaism * United Steelworkers * US-CAN * Utility Workers Union of America * Veterans and Military Families for Progress * Veterans Green Jobs * VETPAC * Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy * Virginia Interfaith Power and Light * Virginia Organizing Project * VoteVets * Working America * World Wildlife Fund

For those of you wondering what the story is with a Treasury Department document that purports to estimate the cost of climate legislation: it doesn’t.

The Treasury Department analysis simply quantifies the potential revenue from a hypothetical auction of all pollution permits under a cap and trade bill.

Opponents of climate change legislation are now firing up the fuzzy math machine again, dividing that figure by the number of people in the country and concluding that cap and trade will mean high costs for households. Sound familiar? That's how House Minority Leader John Boehner arrived at his roundly dismissed $3,100 figure.

It’s a flawed analysis of a non-existent proposal.

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable — and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

For more info on what well-designed cap and trade legislation will actually cost, please visit http://www.edf.org/climatecosts.

EDF's Vice President Marcia Aronoff just got back from Troy, New York, where she got to show off the latest addition to www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org to two Congressmen, a college president, green business entrepreneurs, and the media.

Marcia was invited to speak at Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY-20) and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY-21)'s news conference on clean energy. The Congressmen, both big supporters of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, were at Hudson Valley Community College to see a new solar panel installation built by students in the Green Jobs Training Program.

Marcia unveiled the brand new New York state map on www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org. New York is our 21st state to be added to the site, and it's one of the richest for clean energy companies. The map shows 200 businesses that are working in the energy efficiency or renewable energy markets. But, as Marcia said:

Those businesses are poised to grow under a clean energy bill, but they're just the tip of the iceberg. A clean energy bill that puts a cap on carbon pollution will put American ingenuity to work, and will help launch businesses and create jobs here in New York. We can put our renewable energy resources to work for us and revitalize our economy.

See a short video clip of the news conference here.

Two groups of American veterans, military and national security leaders are calling on Congress to take action on clean energy legislation.

Last week we told you about Partnership for a Secure America — a new group that's calling for a climate bill for the sake of our national security. Now the group has released a signed statement calling for "a clear, comprehensive, realistic and broadly bipartisan plan to address our role in the climate change crisis."

The statement is signed by 32 heavy-hitters from national politics and the military, and from all over the political spectrum.

At the same time, our friends at Vote Vets are launching a new national TV ad campaign. From their website:

Featuring Iraq War Veterans, (the ad) makes the case that oil profits to the Middle East fund the same terrorists we’re fighting, and closes with the line that “It’s not just a question of American energy, it’s a question of American power."

Vote Vets has also sent more than one hundred veterans to Washington D.C. this week to push for passage of a bill. They are working with a coalition of other veterans and security groups called Operation Free.