Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Clinton on energy

Which of the major Democratic party candidates has the best energy platform? I thought I’d do a comparison based on what I could find on their websites and some interviews. The good news is that all four of Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Clinton have either “Energy” or “Energy and Environment” as one of the top-level platform issues on their sites. The not-so-good news is the content of those platform proposals. Details below!

To facilitate comparisons I broke down the candidates’ energy plans into 14 significant policy areas, with an additional note on the detail level of the plans and a final “miscellaneous” category for special ideas found in each. Every one of the proposals has something that seems unique and useful, but not all will do as much to solve our energy and climate problems.

Energy policy area	Edwards	Obama	Richardson	Clinton
Plan detail level	Medium	Low	High	Low
CO2 reduction goal	15% by 2020, 80% by 2050	80% by 2050	20% by 2020, 80% by 2040, 90% by 2050	No policy
Post-Kyoto	Yes: binding greenhouse reductions in trade agreements	After we take first step; help developing countries with our technology	Mandatory world-wide limits, help finance leapfrogging in developing countries	No policy
CAFE	40 mpg by 2016	4% annual increase	35 mpg by 2016, 50 by 2020	No policy
Renewable electric standard	25% by 2025	No policy	30% by 2020, 50% by 2040	20% by 2020
Bio-fuels	Goal of 65 billion gallons/year by 2025 (corn ethanol first, then cellulosic)	National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: reduce fossil carbon in fuels by 5% in 2015, 10% in 2020; expand E85 and biodiesel	life-cycle low carbon fuel standard – 30% lower by 2020	Part of Strategic Energy Fund
Carbon tax or cap and trade?	Cap and trade	Cap and trade	Cap and trade	Cap and trade
“Clean coal”	freeze on new coal power until sequestration in place	No freeze; use cap and trade market to decide	by 2020 new plants have to emit 90% below today’s	Fund R&D on “clean coal”
Energy R&D	$13 billion/year New Energy Economy fund	No policy	Energy and Climate Investment Trust Fund – several billion dollars/year	Part of Strategic Energy Fund
Solar/wind production tax credit	make permanent	No policy	10-year extension; add storage technology tax credit	No policy
Oil company subsidies	Repeal	No subsidies that increase global warming	Invite oil companies to become energy companies	Eliminate tax breaks, create new “Strategic energy fund” – oil companies can invest in renewable energy themselves, or pay into the fund
Distributed generation	$5000 tax credit, R&D, smart meters, smart grids	No policy	No policy	No policy
Public transportation	No policy	No policy	increase funding, tax incentives for passengers	No policy
Buildings	weatherizing and other efficiency	No policy	goal of 50% savings by 2030; incentives and regulations on retrofits and new buildings	No policy
Improving Efficiency	Goal-based; cut US govt energy use 20%, add R&D dollars	Market-based; don’t prejudge what works	Strong federal standards; efficiency resource program through utilities	Market-based; invest in R&D
Other ideas	GreenCorps – volunteers adding renewable/efficient infrastructure	domestic auto makers get health care assistance for efficiency investments	100 mpg car, smart growth, bike and walking trails, more specifics	“Apollo Project-like program” for energy independence

All of these are significant improvements over present US energy policy. Senators Clinton and Obama have actually introduced some of their ideas as legislative proposals this session, but so far they haven’t won enough support to be enacted into law. Richardson and Edwards clearly favor government regulatory-based approaches to improving efficiency and introducing technologies, rather than the more market-based approaches of Clinton and Obama, though even Obama introduces regulatory constraints with his CAFE improvements and Low Carbon Fuel standard, and they all force regulation through “cap and trade” and post-Kyoto international agreements, something Republicans have clamored against for decades now.

I don’t think any of these plans is perfect, but all will be helpful. If I’ve misinterpreted or missed something from one of their policy statements on energy, please let me know.

Update: I just learned that a 20% by 2020 Renewable Electric Standard has been introduced as an amendment to the energy bill currently under consideration in the house: from the oil drum and some background info from Dave Roberts. If this actually gets through maybe we can cross that line off our table – though Richardson’s proposal is still tougher.

In a comment, writer Arthur Smith adds:

… on nuclear power: