Dan Weiss and Alexandra Kougentakis at the Center for American Progress take a look at the Senate’s version of the stimulus plan and conclude that, on the whole, it’s better in terms of clean energy investments and incentives than the House version.
While several not-so-green programs would get funding in the Senate plan—including $50 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry and $4.6 billion for the coal industry—green projects overall would get approximately $7 billion more in spending.
The Senate’s American Investment and Recovery Plan (not to be confused with the House’s “American Reinvestment and Recover Act”) includes $78 billion in clean energy spending as part of their $365 billion recovery package. The tax package also has $31 billion in tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency, compared to $20 billion in the House plan.
Grid improvement funds are higher in the Senate version—$21 billion compared with the House’s $19 billion. Same with funds for renewables—$7.6 billion, to the House’s $5.1 billion.
We mistakenly wrote yesterday that mass transit fares worse in the Senate version of the bill when compared with the House’s $14.6 billion. But transit gets a better deal in the Senate overall, at $17 billion. Amtrak especially fares better—$3.1 billion to the House’s $1.1 billion.
Investments in building and appliance efficiency, meanwhile, did better in the House version—$5 billion more than the Senate plan.
Of course, the Senate’s version could still change when it moves to floor for debate next week, and any differences between the bills the two chambers pass would have to be worked out in a conference committee.
Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:20 pm
29 Jan 2009
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 1:07 pm
30 Jan 2009
this, like most articles on this site supporting Big Energy boondoggles, belong in the "greenwash" section. Big, Remote Industrial Power Plants that kill millions of acres of ecosystems and deplete groundwater, and lengthy, toxic transmission are NOT GREEN, even if they do use a bit of sun or wind as fuel.
local, point of use solutions are cheaper, cleaner, greener and fairer, so why do you keep gabbling about Big Energy saving the planet? they are just doing what they always do - externalizing 100% of their costs onto ratepayers, taxpayers and the planet, only this time, their PR is "Green." duh!
it is embarrassing that so few people are willing to discuss the truth. are you all hypnotized as soon as someone says "green" "solar" or "renewable?" snap out of it. these are more GIVEAWAYS to Big Energy and you should be fighting HARD for loans, grants and feed in tariffs so ratepayer-generators across the country can be the solution.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink