House passes cap-and-trade bill

The House just passed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill by a vote of 219-212.

So far the only reaction I have from South Bay lawmakers comes from Jane Harman, who said she would reluctantly vote yes. UPDATE: Waters statement.

Here's Harman's statement:

Let me be crystal clear:  the bill we are voting on today - and which I will support - falls far short of what could and must be achieved if we are to get our arms around greenhouse gas emissions, promote green jobs and innovation, and demonstrate leadership to the rest of the world.

My Committee colleagues Chairman Henry Waxman and Subcommittee Chair Ed Markey have worked tirelessly to craft legislation that makes progress on climate change goals and creates a system to cap and trade carbon emissions. 

And believe me, as a mother of four, I understand that perfection is not an option.  But in assembling a bill that will garner enough votes to pass, many troubling changes and compromises were made.

I am particularly disappointed that a bipartisan provision on which I labored to boost outdoor lighting efficiency by 25% by 2010 was gutted in the course of trading for votes.  Not only would this provision have cut the country's annual electricity bill by $1 billion, the changes made to it pose serious preemption challenges to bellwether states like California, which are consistently on the cutting-edge of environmental policy.

Trolling for votes also resulted in the dilution of an extremely important provision on green buildings and a weakened renewable fuels standard.

While passing the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009 is better than doing nothing, I consider this bill nothing more than a first step.

ADD: Maxine Waters:

"This bill is a crucial part of our economic recovery," said Congresswoman Waters. "It will create millions of new American jobs and entire new industries.  Helping reduce foreign oil imports by more than 5 million barrels a day -- what we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela - improves our national security. We will also reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, using the same solution that successfully fought acid rain in the 1990s."

With a combination of price spike protections, energy refunds and cost-saving technology, this bill will protect consumers, keep costs low, and protect current jobs by helping energy-intensive industries transition to a cleaner, more profitable future. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the legislation would cost a typical American household less than a postage stamp per day, or less than $111 a year.

However, Congresswoman Waters emphasized that lower income households will see no new costs; in fact the Congressional Budget Office reports that they will actually save $40 per year with the plan.

More as they come in. No word from Rohrabacher, who voted no. Richardson voted yes.