Letters To the Editor

Climate Efforts at Risk

Frustrated by ineffective federal and global efforts to combat climate change, many local and state governments are adopting their own plans. In this region, Montgomery County led the way, investing in clean, renewable energy and encouraging its residents to do so. But this leadership may now be at risk because of a declining economy and an austere budget.

In 2003, well before terms like "carbon footprint" and "An Inconvenient Truth" entered broad public consciousness, Montgomery County committed to purchase 5 percent of its electricity from non-polluting, renewable sources. In 2006, the county increased this percentage to 10 percent -- and agreed to procure 20 percent of electricity from wind by 2011.

The county spends $257,000 a year more for electricity than if all its power came from coal or nuclear. (Total electricity costs are $27 million.) Buying 10 percent of the county's power from wind reduces more than 11,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, at a cost of about $23 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced. However, with a new electricity contract coming up, county officials say they are considering alternatives to the commitment to procure 20 percent of electricity from wind because of its cost.

Under the Clean Energy Rewards program, the county made it easy for residents to purchase clean, renewable energy and gave them a rebate of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. The program, which gave its first rewards in July 2006, experienced dramatic success, increasing clean energy consumers from fewer than 500 to more than 2,600 and reducing greenhouse gases by 11,500 tons by the end of last year. The county spent $182,900 for rewards to consumers, resulting in a cost of $16 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced. When these funds ran out in January, the Department of Environmental Protection suspended the program rather than requesting additional funds from the County Council.

On April 22, the County Council passed an audacious package of bills to reduce greenhouse gases, sponsored by energy lawyer Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda). Most importantly, the bills call for a climate protection plan to stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions countywide by 2010 and reduce such emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Other provisions mandate Energy Star standards for new homes, require fueling county vehicles with biodiesel, limit county use of sport-utility vehicles and establish property tax credits for geothermal heating and cooling and other home energy-efficiency measures. Implementing them will cost county government at least $1.5 million in the first year, but County Executive Isiah Leggett's (D) proposed budget does not include these funds. Based upon the experience with Clean Energy Rewards, one must wonder whether these initiatives will launch with the best intentions, only to be interrupted or terminated later when money runs out.

It is time to stop congratulating ourselves for being "green" and to get serious about achieving real, measurable greenhouse gas reductions. We must analyze how much greenhouse gas reduction should cost and how much we are willing to pay. Ultimately, the best way to attribute the costs of greenhouse gas emissions to their source may be a local carbon tax, as proposed in the council's climate protection plan.

Ideally, consumers who buy clean energy should pay no energy tax. This would obviate the need for the Clean Energy Reward, but utilities must be more willing to share information before this goal can be realized. In the meantime, a small energy tax increase, now being considered by the council, could offset increased carbon reduction investments and, at the same time, encourage energy conservation. If we are not willing to make such investments today, the long-term costs of climate change -- flooding, drought, displacement, food shortages, species loss and more -- will be far greater.

George L. Leventhal

(D-At Large)

Montgomery County

Council member