Sherrod Brown on Energy & Oil Democratic Sr Senator; previously Representative (OH-13)

Aggressive action to combat climate change

Climate Change : Should climate change be a top priority?
• Sherrod Brown (D): Yes. Supports taking "aggressive action to combat climate change." Supports increasing renewable and clean energy jobs. Voted to fund $369 billion in climate and clean energy initiatives. Voted for $1.2 trillion in infrastructure, part of which reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
• Bernie Moreno (R): No. Would increase domestic coal, natural gas, and oil production. "We need to unleash American energy." Opposed funding $369 billion in climate and clean energy initiatives. Opposes incentives for solar, wind, and electric vehicle industries.

Pretending that climate change isn't happening is dangerous

Sherrod Brown (D): Yes. "Pretending that climate change isn't happening isn't just foolish. It is very dangerous."

Jim Renacci (R): Probable no. In 2010 said emission regulations have "virtually no impact on global temperatures."

Q: Limit or tax production of greenhouse gases? Support US participation in Paris Climate Accord?

Brown: Yes. Supported EPA regulating greenhouse gases, said Paris Accord withdrawal would hurt OH clean-energy industries.

Renacci: Contested. Says supports limiting greenhouse emissions if Ohio industries such as coal are not harmed. Opposed EPA regulating greenhouse gases. Supported withdrawal from Paris Accord.

Q: Support government subsidies for renewable energy?

$30 billion to transition manufacturers to clean energy

Sherrod Brown (D): Yes. Introduced $30 billion loan fund to help smaller manufacturers transition to clean energy economy.

Jim Renacci (R): Mostly no. Called Obama stimulus "a failed experiment," though supports Trump infrastructure plan.

Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices.

The Problem

The Progressive Caucus Solution: Wholesale Cost-based Pricing with Refunds

The Progressive Caucus advocates:

• Implement wholesale cost-based pricing of electricity & natural gas to ensure consumers are not gouged. Require refunds when necessary.
• Grant FERC new powers to regulate heating oil prices at the wholesale level. Cost-based pricing of heating oil will ensure consumers are protected from heating oil price spikes.

Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it.

Title: To preserve the Arctic coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, as wilderness in recognition of its extraordinary natural ecosystems and for the permanent good of present and future generations of Americans.

Summary: Designates specified lands within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System [which would preclude oil exploration and drilling].

Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:

• 0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
• 30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
• 70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)

The Campaign for America`s Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America`s priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.

About the CAF report, `Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric`:

Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.

Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

• Whereas there is a scientific consensus that the continued buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threatens the stability of the global climate;
• Whereas there are significant long-term risks to the economy and the environment of the US from the temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are projected to result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations;
• Whereas the US has the largest economy in the world and is also the largest emitter of greenhouse gases;
• Whereas reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the levels necessary to avoid serious climatic disruption requires the introduction of new energy technologies and other climate-friendly technologies;
• Whereas the development and sale of climate-friendly technologies in the US and internationally present economic opportunities for workers and businesses in the United States;
• Whereas President Bush, in the State of the Union Address given in January 2006, called on the US to reduce its `addiction` to oil and focus its attention on developing cleaner, renewable, and sustainable energy sources;
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United States should act to reduce the health, environmental, economic, and national security risks posed by global climate change and foster sustained economic growth through a new generation of technologies
• by participating in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and leading efforts in other international fora,
• with the objective of securing United States participation in binding agreements that establish mitigation commitments by all countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases;
• establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize the cost of efforts by participating countries; and
• achieve a significant long-term reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Sponsored bill for $5 billion for alternative energy.

Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act of 2011 or the SEAM Act of 2011 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to expand the qualifying advanced energy project credit by allocating in 2011 $5 billion of grants or tax credit amounts to manufacturers of goods and components (other than for assembly of components) in the US that are used in alternative energy projects.

[Explanatory note from americanprogress.org]:

The SEAM Act provides financial assistance to US manufacturing companies that want to retool their factories for the clean energy economy. By promoting growth of the manufacturing sector, this legislation has the potential to create badly needed jobs that can put Americans back to work.

The SEAM Act goes a step beyond just providing more funding. It amends the existing terms of the funding to increase its effectiveness. The new Manufacturing Tax Credit would prioritize funding for companies that provide supplies over those that assemble goods. Drawing this distinction helps target support for companies that need it most. There`s another benefit to supporting supply companies over assembly companies. Both types of companies promote economic development, but workers in the supply chain, such as tool and die workers, welders, and machinists, are generally paid more than workers in the assembly chain.

In addition to being an effective tool for economic recovery, the SEAM Act provides an example of a well-designed tax expenditure. More than 60% of federal support for the energy industry is now delivered via `tax expenditures`--government spending programs that deliver subsidies through the tax code via special tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and preferential rates--and a recent hearing in Congress indicates that this trend is likely to continue. Problem is, many of these tax expenditures are questionable at best.

Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025.

A resolution that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the US should provide from renewable resources not less than 25% of the total energy consumed and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. [Governors also signed letters of endorsement at www.25x25.org]

Rep. SALAZAR: `Our resolution establishes a national goal of producing 25% of America`s energy from renewable sources--like solar, wind and biofuels--by 2025. The `25x`25` vision is widely endorsed, bold, and fully attainable. If implemented, it would dramatically improve our energy security, our economy, and our ability to protect the environment.

`I am pleased that more than 20 of my colleagues in the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, are cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, the `25x`25` vision has been endorsed by 22 current and former governors and several State legislatures across the country. The Big Three automobile manufacturers--Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors--are all behind `25x`25` So are many agricultural organizations, environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to John Deere.

`These Americans understand that we cannot continue to import 60% of our oil from foreign countries, many of which are hostile to the US, if we aim to be strong and secure in the world. They know that we will have to build a clean energy economy if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in our clean energy future. Establishing a national goal--`25x`25` is the first step.`