Group claims utilities twisting facts on climate change bill

As Democrats in the U.S. House race toward a Friday floor vote on the controversial cap-and-trade bill, some interests are distorting information on how the legislation affects consumers, according to the Iowa Policy Project (IPP).

“Iowa electric customers deserve better treatment in this very important debate,” said David Osterberg, executive director IPP, a nonpartisan public policy research and analysis organization based in Iowa City. “The worst thing we can do for energy consumers, particularly low-income consumers, is fail to move forward with effective climate policy.”

Osterberg said recent comments in the media from utility executives are attempting to pit region against region, and making inaccurate conclusions about the consumer impact of proposed climate policy. In particular, MidAmerican Energy Co., Iowa’s largest utility, has argued that the bill would favor large utilities on the coasts that rely more on nuclear energy or hydropower over Midwestern utilities that are more dependent on coal.

That argument has won over several House Democrats from agricultural states, including Iowa Rep. Leonard Boswell, whose spokesman told the Iowa Independent earlier this week that unless changes were made he would not support the climate change bill.

Iowa utilities actually are making better power generation decisions than some in other states, which makes the recent comments from utility executives frustrating, Osterberg said. He noted the Alliant decision to pull back from a coal-fired plant at Marshalltown, and the growth of wind power by MidAmerican that has helped to boost wind to 15 percent of Iowa’s share of electric generating capacity.

IPP also noted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last week estimated the cost in 2020 of the proposed cap-and-trade program would be $22 billion, or about $175 per household, in 2010 dollars. Those figures do not include some of the energy-efficiency provisions of the bill, which could average household costs even lower, between $80 and $111 in 2030, according to analysis released by the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday.

“Critics of the current proposals present a false choice between protecting the environment and protecting consumers. Rather, we need to recognize that while new climate policy moves us away from dependence on polluting forms of energy, we can do this in a way that assures low-income people don’t experience increased costs,” Osterberg said.

The Washington, D.C.,-based Web site Politico reported Wednesday that Democrats will be successful in passing the legislation Friday, with the help of some Republicans. The legislation is likely to face stiff opposition in the Senate.