“I have real reservations about a local cap and trade program,” Loudoun Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) said publicly this month. “I think that is going too far.”
The divisive item is one of several measures included in a newly released 49-page county energy plan, which officials hope will be a long-term guide for curtailing energy use and pollution in Loudoun.
In June, Loudoun won a $2.2 million energy conservation grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to help beef up its green initiatives. However, in order to receive all the money, the county has to explain how it intends to spend it.
In response, Loudoun officials recently paid a consultant $250,000 to prepare a plan on how the county’s government, businesses and residents can best conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases over the next 20 years. This month, the county held several community input sessions to get feedback on the consultant’s plan. Loudoun’s Board of Supervisors is supposed to examine it in October. Once it does, the goal is to submit the plan to federal energy officials by Nov. 19.
While preparing the plan, the consultant determined that Loudoun produces about 15 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per resident annually. The average is 23 tons nationally and 10 tons in Europe. The objective in Loudoun’s plan is to reduce that amount to seven tons per resident over the next two decades
“It’s a challenging goal, but not in the realm of fantasy,” said Peter Garforth, the consultant behind the plan.
To lower Loudoun’s output of greenhouse gases, Garforth is suggesting the county turn to more renewable power, such as biofuels, solar and wind.
He also suggests the county encourage greater residential density in mixed-use communities and around future rail stations; urge builders to construct homes that are at least 30 percent more energy efficient; and create a program for selling emissions credits in Loudoun, otherwise known as cap and trade.
Devised as a means to control pollution and used widely in Europe, cap and trades set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies can exceed those limits by purchasing credits that are equal to one ton of emissions from companies that pollute less. Critics charge, though, that companies that do this will simply pass the cost on to consumers.
“I believe it has the potential to drive up energy costs, reduce jobs and translate into a national energy tax that will hit every person in our country at a time people can least afford it,” Loudoun’s congressman, U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10th), said in June.
Two months ago, the U.S. House narrowly approved a national energy bill that contains a cap and trade clause. Wolf was one of many Republicans who opposed the bill, citing, among other reasons, concerns about cap and trade. The Senate has yet to tackle the legislation.
If Loudoun adopts a cap and trade program locally, some officials say it could be among the first counties in the nation to do so. Though more details still need to be hashed out, Garforth is proposing that an appointed group run the program. He also said about 2 million tons of emissions could be sold annually in Loudoun at a price somewhere between $10 and $100 per ton.
“That could be a huge chunk of money for somebody,” he pointed out.
However, not everyone is sold on the idea.
Waters called the proposal “complicated” and said not enough is known about how a cap and trade would work at such a local level. She said if the item is still part of the county’s energy plan when it arrives at the board this fall, she would fight to have it removed.
“It is an environmentalist’s dream world,” she said. “We are walking into uncharted territory … We don’t know the consequences and we don’t know the costs.”
Loudoun Chamber of Commerce President Tony Howard was asked to review the energy plan for the local business community.
“There is just enough stuff in there for everyone to find something to hate,” including cap and trade, he said.
He added: “Economists said [cap and trade] could have devastating effects on the economy.” Because of this, he said, the Chamber intends to come out against the national cap and trade proposal and wants the same measure taken out of Loudoun’s energy plan.
He also said at least a year should be given to crafting Loudoun’s energy plan, and not “120 days.”
“The county should take more time to get this right,” he said.
Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) is the driving force behind many of the county’s green initiatives and is chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors’ energy and environment committee, which oversaw creation of the energy plan. Despite objections from others, she said, cap and trade will remain in the plan until it is fully vetted.
“I have no intention of taking it out until we have a good debate about it," she said. "And the board will debate it."
Controversial or not, she explained, it would be unwise for Loudoun not to position itself to enter what could be a very lucrative emissions market.
“I do believe it is a very good idea to track savings in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, in case we are able to monetize these achievements in the future,” she said. “If we don't prepare, we may leave significant amounts of money on the table in future years. It's simple business sense.”
To view Loudoun’s proposed energy plan, see www.loudoun.gov/energy.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a tax.
If the board of supervisors would like to curb CO2 emissions, I highly recommend they stop hyperventilating. Man made global warming and climate change do not exist. IF they did how do you explain climate change before the industrial age? Before mankind existed? It'snot smart believing bogus science. It's really not smart to make public policy based on bogus science, in fact it is the hallmark of an unsuccessfully educated boob.
A quick read of the the impacts of Fedral Cap and Trade on the econmoy shows it would tax everyone by $1700/yr or more. This is taxing at the federal level. Loudoun County now proposes to tax at the local level on top of the federal tax?
Why - because the federal government bribes our board of supervisors with a $2M grant? Let's return the $2M to our fellow tax payers and focus on building more roads so people are not wasting enery, time, and polluting by sitting in traffic.