Don't Let County Executive Leggett Kill Clean Energy Program in MoCo

County Executive Leggett Kills Funding for Clean Energy Rewards

Action by Council Can Still Save the Program

Montgomery County has been building an impressive green infrastructure, block by green block, these past several years, but County Executive Ike Leggett's decision to kill one of the County's most successful green programs is a significant step backwards. In his recently announced budget plan, Mr. Leggett has proposed to entirely kill the Clean Energy Rewards Program. This makes no sense, and we need to get the County Council to act to reverse Mr. Leggett's mistake.

The concept of the Clean Energy Rewards program is simple. Montgomery County electricity users get, in effect, a tax credit against the County energy tax if they buy clean energy. When the Program was created, after a bill championed by Council Member George Leventhal passed the County Council, the idea was to use some funds from the County energy tax to fund the program. Clean Currents has been a certified vendor in the program since its inception. It has worked remarkably well. People, businesses, faith institutions and others have bought clean energy for the very first time. Tons of carbon, the main greenhouse gas causing climate change, have been offset. In fact, the program is one of the most cost effective ways the county has been able to reduce or offset carbon emissions. Montgomery County is the only county in the nation with a program like this. It has won national acclaim, deservedly so, for running this program.

Last year, the program cost the County $550,000. Mr. Leggett is now proposing to raise the energy tax by an additional $50 million. Some of that tax revenue should go to fund the Clean Energy Rewards Program. It is hard to understand why the County Executive did not merely raise the energy tax another half million dollars so that he could fund this incredibly effective green program. He says he had to make "hard decisions," to balance the budget. But I would suggest that being environmentally responsible is for the good times and the bad. For the good budgets and the lean ones. Opposition to progressive environmental standards often comes in the guise of "it will hurt the economy." But here in Montgomery County, our leaders must not fall for that line of thinking. They must stand up for environmental protection in all times. The issue of tackling climate change cannot wait until some future time. We must act now to start addressing it. That's what Cong. Chris Van Hollen says, it is what other progressive leaders say, and it must be what Montgomery County says.

Let's reverse this bad decision. Please send an email immediately to Council President Nancy Floreen asking her to restore funding for Clean Energy Rewards.

Her email is councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov

If you want to email other Council Members, please go to

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltmpl.asp?url=/content/council/index.asp

Back to the States

In the waning days of the Bush-Cheney administration, environmental groups and concerned businesses started a dramatic shift in strategy in the effort to combat radical climate change. They shifted from a state level strategy back to a Capitol Hill strategy. With the election of Barak Obama and a super majority Democratic Congress, this choice made even more sense. For a brief moment, it seemed like the United States would adopt national legislation to promote clean energy and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Unfortunately, that moment may have passed. Seems like it's time to go back to the states.

The benefits of doing something at the Federal level vs. the state level are clear. We can cause a much more significant change in our fossil fuel use at the national level. The problem is that we seem to live in an era (and hopefully it's temporary) when our political system is simply broken, and unable to solve the large national questions of the day. Maybe the problem is the Senate, where tiny Wyoming, with about 1.5% of the population of California has the same number of Senators. Maybe the problem is the money in politics, the fundraising and the favors. Who knows? Bottom line - I don't expect any significant bill to come from Capitol Hill.

So, we're back to working the states. The record there is pretty impressive. Thanks to a lot of hard work in Maryland, we've got some pretty progressive environmental/clean energy laws here. Maryland is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), committing to a ten percent reduction in greenhouse gases from power plants along with nine other states in the northeast. RGGI is on the right track and with some improvement can make some real significant cuts in greenhouse gases. California and other western states are adopting a similar plan.

The way to make these kind of efforts even more impactful is to deal with the issue of "leakage," or out-of-state emissions related to energy use in state. This can be done. California, for example, can require a large portion of power delivered to it to come from clean sources, or have a cap on greenhouse gases associated with it. That way, emissions from power plants in Nevada, Idaho, or other western states would be reduced. If we did this in the Mid Atlantic, we could reduce emissions from plants in states such as Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In other words, an action in a few states could have an impact in many. We don't need to pass progressive environmental and clean energy laws in every state, just in the states where most of the people live and most of the jobs are. Luckily, those states are generally the most open to progressive legislation to combat climate change or to promote clean energy.

I hope I'm wrong about Capitol Hill. But if I'm not, let's get back to work in the states.