Exelon joins other utilities in dropping out of U.S. Chamber
The rift is being caused by the business group's opposition to climate-change legislation, something the parent of Peco believes is necessary and inevitable.
Exelon joins other utilities in dropping out of U.S. Chamber
Mike Armstrong, Inquirer Columnist
Political commentators keep describing the climate-change legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June as stalled in the U.S. Senate.
Perhaps, but the latest drama is unfolding outside the political arena, in the offices of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is fielding some uncomfortable criticism over its opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
The U.S. Chamber is used to being tarred by labor and environmental groups. But this time, the revolt is from within. Three large utilities say they will leave the chamber over the issue.
Exelon Corp. became the latest and largest to do so yesterday. Chairman and CEO John W. Rowe, in an address to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, said his Chicago company is so committed to climate legislation that it will let its chamber membership lapse.
“Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the U.S. Chamber this year,” Rowe said.
It was only one line in a speech largely about energy efficiency. But in shunning the chamber, the parent of Philadelphia-based Peco joins PG&E Corp., of San Francisco, and PNM Resources Inc., of Albuquerque, N.M., which within the space of a week announced their intentions to leave the chamber. With a market value of $33.1 billion, Exelon is much bigger than PG&E and PNM.
No one from the U.S. Chamber, which has about 3 million members, returned a phone call yesterday seeking comment.
PG&E chairman and CEO Peter Darbee was even more forceful in his criticism of the chamber.
“We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored,” Darbee wrote in a letter to the chamber. Excerpts from that letter are posted on PG&E’s corporate blog.
The U.S. Chamber, as an advocate for business, has been challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from cars. Though the organization has said Congress should enact legislation to regulate greenhouse gases, the chamber does not support what the House has passed. (The clean-energy bill is often referred to as Waxman-Markey, after its sponsors.)
Saying the “carbon-based free lunch is over,” Rowe sees that opposition as a mistake. “Inaction on climate is not an option. If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution,” Rowe said in a statement.
All that would be Washington as usual had a U.S. Chamber vice president named Bill Kovacs not invoked the phrase “Scopes monkey trial” in an August article in the Los Angeles Times to describe the chamber’s effort to put “the science of climate change on trial.”
Kovacs later said his use of that analogy evoking the 1925 trial over the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools was “inappropriate” and detracted from the chamber’s message.
Exelon, PG&E and PNM weren’t buying that. All are card-carrying members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which is also supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
The group has been calling for federal legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions. Does it hope to influence the legislative process? Absolutely.
By turning their backs to the U.S. Chamber, Exelon and the others are showing they’ve given up trying to influence “the voice of business.”
Of course Exelon wants cap & trade - higher rates mean higher profits (look at how much money ExxonMobil made when the oil prices went up despite people buying less gas.) Plus they look to get scads of government money to assist in the transition to a 'smart grid'. Higher rates and government money - what's not to like from Exelon's viewpoint? Oh wait, they're doing it because it's good for the environment? What's stopping them now? They don't want to spend their money on it? Considering their profit margin is four times what the insurance industry is, perhaps President Obama should create a 'public option' here, too?
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
The article only brushes on the real issue.. if legislation is not passed, the EPA will regulate GHGs under the existing regulations. They're already started the process for this, in an attempt to move the legislation. If GHGs are regulated under CAA90, there will be much stricter regulation.. and certainly no freebies like those contained in the proposed bill. The utilities will not take meaningful action until required by law.— Politburo- Let the Govt. have it's way and we will have a "Public Option" for every event affecting your life. Just no freedom to decide for yourself. What did the dinosaurs do to cause the ice age? Since when did concensus prove a theory?— vocal Joe
- Comment removed.
Chambers of Commerce need get their blinders off. The whole "Green Revolution" going worldwide- as it must- is America's best if not only hope for an industrial and production explosion, the likes of which only can produce the revenue stream healthy enough to remedy our deficits.
Mike Armstrong blogs about Philadelphia corporations and business-related topics. Contact him at 215-854-2980.
Reach Mike at marmstrong@phillynews.com.
