Energy Reform Will Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil and Help Clean Up the Bay

Statement

Energy Reform Will Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil and Help Clean Up the Bay

In the days before and since last month's passage of the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, I've heard plenty from constituents on both sides of this debate. The national commentary does not focus on the impact this legislation will have to us here in Maryland, but instead has implied such legislation would have a similar impact everywhere. As a Maryland representative, I think it's worth a moment to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by constituents, while refocusing the discussion on what the bill will mean for our communities.

From opponents of this bill, one of the most common refrains has been, "We don't want cap and trade." But from a Maryland perspective, that sentiment forgets the fact that our state already has a cap-and-trade regime in place. Maryland has been part of a regional cap-and-trade initiative since 2007, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the state to fund consumer rebates and energy conservation programs. In fact, Maryland's greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal - a 25% reduction by 2020 - is already tougher than the 17% reduction goal called for by the American Clean Energy & Security Act.

Opponents of ACES have also cited concerns about its costs. Some of these charges - that this bill is a massive tax increase, or that it will cost families $4,000 per year - are simply nonsense. This bill does not raise taxes at all, and will actually reduce the deficit over 10 years. Furthermore, those extreme cost estimates have been thoroughly debunked, since they completely ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of allowances that have been granted for the sole purpose of price reductions for consumers. Even the neutral, non-partisan estimates of the bill's cost, such as the Congressional Budget Office's projection of $175 per year for the average family, do not take into account Maryland's unique position as a state that is already operating under stricter mandates. When state-specific factors are considered, another study projects that the bill will actually save the average Maryland family $8 per month. It is also worth pointing out that the Supreme Court has already confirmed the EPA's authority to proceed with its own regulatory program if Congress fails to act, which would result in a far worse deal for consumers and farmers.

Even knowing these facts, I would not have been able to support any bill that put Maryland farmers at a disadvantage relative to farmers in other states. I only supported ACES after its authors accepted an amendment I offered that set aside an additional $1 billion of emissions allowances for farmers, like many in Maryland, who would otherwise be prohibited from receiving credit for their environmental practices. This amendment, along with the increased demand for biofuels that will result from this bill, will open up considerable new revenue streams for Maryland farmers, who are also exempt from the bill's emissions caps.

When I ran for Congress, I promised in every stump speech that among my top priorities would be reducing our nation's dependence on foreign oil, reducing gas prices, increasing investments in domestic renewable energy, protecting the Chesapeake Bay, and fighting to get our farmers the resources needed to thrive on the Eastern Shore. In thoroughly reviewing this bill, it became clear to me that a vote against ACES would have been a betrayal of those promises. As long as the United States continues to rely so heavily on foreign oil, our national security is at risk and our gas prices could again sky-rocket at any moment. After decades of rhetoric, the American Clean Energy and Security Act will finally put us on a path toward energy security by promoting homegrown, American sources of clean energy.

Source