FAIRMONT — The federal government is flirting with the idea of taming carbon emissions through “cap and trade” legislation, though opponents deride this initiative as nothing more than a “cap and tax” plan that does more harm than good.

A cap and trade program would set a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. If the company exceeds that limit, it would be able to buy extra permits from those companies who emit less than their allowance.

The “trade” may make it relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce emissions below their required limit than others.

Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions.

Supporters want smoke stack companies to limit the amount of greenhouse gas they emit to tackle the prospect of global warming. Reducing carbon dioxide — from fossil fuels like coal — is thought to be better for the environment because

the world will not become as hot as a greenhouse in August since heat from the sun would not be trapped inside the earth’s atmosphere.

This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions while rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy, according to the left-leaning American Progress organization.

Congress members Alan B. Mollohan, Shelley Moore Capito and Nick Rahall all voted against the resolution in June.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., reportedly plans to vote against the resolution while Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has “serious concerns” with the House’s amendments to the original resolution.

Opponents contend cap and trade will increase the cost of doing business while doing little to solve any perceived global warming crisis. Companies reliant on fossil fuels would have to spend untold dollars to develop technology to reduce their emissions.

Manufacturing companies among others will be forced to relocate to countries such as China, India and Mexico where environmental regulations are not nearly as strict. In addition, many would pay more for electricity because utility companies rely heavily on coal.

And for what? Many experts say temperatures might — not would — decrease by less than one degree.

Opponents dub this as “cap and tax” because all greenhouse gas emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by 2019.

Though coal provides more than 50 percent of the nation’s energy needs, some contend that it is the target of cap and trade legislation.

“Of course it targets coal because coal-fired power plants are one of the biggest producers of carbon dioxide,” Mollohan said.



Congress

The House passed a climate change legislation (HR2454) in late June by a 219-212 vote. Several committees in the Senate have drafted different versions of this legislation.

Mollohan opposes the legislation in its current form.

“Bottom line, I oppose cap and trade because in its current form it would be devastating to West Virginia’s economy both in terms of the number of coal mining jobs lost and the seriously negative impact on coal companies,” he said.

“Additionally, in the northern part of the state, where Allegheny power plants are located, without any improvements to the current bill, this legislation would have a negative impact on their financial well being.

“So I am against it because it is not in the best interests of the first congressional district or West Virginia.”

Mollohan said in order for this legislation to be supported by the West Virginia delegation, at least as far as he is concerned, the United Mine Workers of America, the coal companies and power industry as well as manufacturing interests would have to “act separately but as a united front” to guarantee this bill will happen.

“That’s not likely,” he said. “I’m not saying that’s impossible, but I see a very slim prospect of these different groups supporting this legislation — highly unlikely.”

If the House’s version of the legislation were to become law today, everyone would pay more for electricity. Mollohan said though there are many studies that project how much power would cost, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that a median house will pay $175 more for electricity per year under this proposal.

By opposing this legislation, Mollohan and Rahall struck out against party leadership.

Mollohan said he was approached by his “very good friend” Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to President Obama. Emanuel served alongside Mollohan in Congress during the past several years. Mollohan said Emanuel is one of three key backers of this legislation.

“When Rahm came to me, I told him I’m opposed to it,” Mollohan said. “I said, ‘Rahm, this is a defining issue for West Virginia. It is not in our best interest because it will have major economic impacts.’”

Mollohan said he was also approached by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“She came up to me on the House floor and asked me, ‘Where are you on cap and trade?’ I told her that I am against it. She understood, smiled and walked away.”

Mollohan said Obama’s Climate Czar Carol Browner paid a courtesy call to him to ask him about his position.

“She knew where I stood,” he said.

Mollohan, a veteran legislator who serves on the Appropriations Committee, said he was not under any pressure to side with the leadership on climate change.

“Believe me, this is not pressure,” he said.

Mollohan said there was nothing in the bill that would have helped coal.

“The bill has room for improvement for coal areas, but they are not there yet,” he said.

At least six Senate committees, including the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which Rockefeller chairs, have jurisdiction over climate legislation and could offer their own versions — which would ultimately have to be incorporated into one bill before being considered on the Senate floor.

“I will not support any energy bill that threatens West Virginia’s future,” Rockefeller said while he was in Ellenboro Thursday. “In my role as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee I will be a lead advocate for coal’s future and make sure that the voices of West Virginia coal miners have a seat at the negotiating table.”

With regard to the Senate’s efforts toward cap and trade, Rockefeller said the climate legislation as proposed by Senators Boxer and John Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction.

“Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful — it is simply not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency technologies we need. Period,” Rockefeller posted recently on his Web site. “Our nation cannot survive without energy from coal, and any viable climate policy must solidify our future by focusing on technology to make coal cleaner faster. I will continue studying the bill and all of its implications for our state and the coal industry.

“This is by no means the defining word on climate legislation in the Senate. I remain adamant in my conviction not to support any bill that might threaten the economy, workers or families across West Virginia. We should take the time to approach these issues with absolute care and diligence — they require nothing less.”

E-mail J. Miles Layton at mlayton@timeswv.com.