Duke Energy quits scandal-ridden American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity 4

Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

Electric utility giant Duke Energy has quit the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) because of the coal group’s unethical opposition to President Obama’s clean energy reform agenda.

For the last few years, Duke has been one of the most prominent industry voices calling for the regulation of industrial global warming pollution, but has also supported the efforts of various right-wing lobbying groups to prevent such action. ACCCE, in addition to promoting “clean coal” Christmas carols, employs right-wing public relations firms to paint the American Clean Energy and Security Act as a job-killing energy tax through whatever means necessary—even blatant forgery. According to the National Journal, Duke has finally recognized that the time has come to choose energy reform over old pollution:

Duke Energy left the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy on Tuesday over differences with “influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” the company said.

Duke Energy left the right-wing National Association of Manufacturers in May for similar reasons, but Duke’s CEO, Jim Rogers, still sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—alongside right-wing climate deniers Don Blankenship, Harry Alford, and George Argyros—which is spending tens of millions of dollars to kill clean energy jobs.

Members of business coalitions like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) and Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) have advocated for the establishment of a mandatory carbon market (“cap and trade”) to promote investment in clean energy while reducing global warming polution. In the meantime, business coalitions like the National Association of Manufacturers, ACCCE, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) are running Astroturf campaigns to kill clean energy legislation.

However, Duke is not the only company that has been playing both sides of the field:

– Members of USCAP and ACCCE:  General Electric, Alstom Power and Caterpillar

– Members of USCAP and NAM: Dow Chemical, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar

– Members of USCAP and API: Siemens, Dow Chemical, Shell, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and BP America

– Members of USCAP and the Chamber of Commerce: Alcoa, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, and Siemens

– Member of BICEP and the Chamber of Commerce: Nike

Other ostensibly green companies on the boards of NAM and the Chamber include AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Verizon, Corning, Ford, Honda, Toyota, 3M, Intel, and IBM.

Brad Johnson blogs at the Wonk Room on the climate crisis, energy policy, and building a green economy. Brad holds a bachelor’s degree in math and physics from Amherst College and master’s degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the co-author of Technomanifestos, a history of the Information Revolution, and the founder of HillHeat.com, which covers climate policy in our nation’s capital.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Royal Enfield's avatar

    Royal Enfield Posted 10:36 pm
    02 Sep 2009

    I'm sure this is more complicated than it looks from the outside, but whatever - I say Go Duke!  Down with ACEEE!  Wait, I mean down with ACCCE! Up with ACEEE!  So confusing.

    Permalink

  2. Jensen G Posted 9:32 am
    03 Sep 2009

    I don't think that Duke should be called out for sitting on the US Chamber of Commerce - it is an incredible privilege and position of power to be a part of the organization, even if some of the things it does are not green (and may even be anti-green). Let's see the forest for the trees before we demonize every organization that doesn't fit exactly in our worldview.

    Permalink

  3. vbstenswick Posted 9:36 pm
    03 Sep 2009

    Green isn't always right, just most of the time.  There are legitimate concerns from large energy users over the price of energy.  I personally favor a carbon tax increased gradually, maybe $2/ton per year, every January 1 it goes up $2, using the proceeds to mostly lower the Social Security tax, or maybe half rebated and half to lower the tax.  Along with that we could very gradually increase the production tax credit for renewable energy, treating all equally, thus wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc get $0.02/kwh this year, and increase it $0.002/kwh every other year.  The utilities, companies, homeowners would figure out what the best deal was.

    Permalink

  4. Ken Ward's avatar

    Ken Ward Posted 12:36 pm
    08 Sep 2009

    Brad, This is a very useful post. Important to remember that the reason we (US environmentalists, that is) went with cap in trade is that it was supposed to gain us a powerful segment of private sector. Now that the chips are down, where are they? The real question here is not whether companies like Duke pull off spurious "clean coal" outfits like ACCE, it's why hasn't EDF and NRDC threatened to pull out of U.S. Climate Action Partnership, given the lackluster, at best, to duplicitous actions of corporate membership.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement