With most of the focus this month on health-care reform, the other extremely controversial bill (Waxman-Markey) — which would dramatically alter the nation’s energy policy — is likely to start ramping up again next month when the U.S. Senate reconvenes from its August recess.

A Washington Post article (below) discusses how both sides of the issue are already gearing up for the debate:

Next month, the Senate is expected to take up legislation that would cap greenhouse-gas emissions. That fight began in blazing earnest last week, with a blitz of TV ads and public events in the Midwest and Mountain West.

It seems that environmentalists are struggling in a fight they have spent years setting up. They are making slow progress adapting a movement built for other goals — building alarm over climate change, encouraging people to “green” their lives — into a political hammer, pushing a complex proposal the last mile through a skeptical Senate.

The Wisconsin Legislature is considering companion bills (Assembly Bill 256/Senate Bill 185) that would give the Wisconsin Public Service Commission the authority to draft rules regarding the siting of wind turbines and preempt local government control over their placement.

Below is a story from the Wisconsin State Journal discussing the bills:

Retired mail carrier Gerry Meyer said he only sleeps two hours a night because of the constant swooshing sound and that his wife has started taking sleep medication.

His neighbor Nick Gonnering in South Byron, who lives just as close to the noise, said he finds the sound “relaxing.”

Either way, the sound of wind turbines is making more ears perk up as a bill moves forward in the Legislature that would empower the Public Service Commission to create statewide rules governing wind power and pre-empt local government control over their placement.

The rules would govern the distance between turbines and homes along with their noise and the flicker effects of shadows from their turbine blades.

The bill’s supporters say the current local ordinances on wind turbines are a patchwork of differing and sometimes unduly restrictive rules that are holding up development of wind farms here.

The U.S. State Department last week granted a permit to construct a 326-mile oil pipeline from the Canadian border to Superior, Wisconsin. As the Washington Post reports, the project has prompted outcry from environmental groups that oppose crude extracted from oil sands.

Proponents counter that receiving oil from our allies to the north is far superior than relying on oil from more volatile places, such as the Middle East or from dictatorships in Latin America, such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Moreover, proponents contend that if the U.S. does not purchase the oil it will be shipped to farther destinations, such as India and China, which would actually lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions.

The environmental group, Earthjustice, has vowed to file a lawsuit challenging the permit.

The American Petroleum Institute has added to the chorus of studies looking at the impact of the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey). According to the study, performed by EnSys Energy, a consulting firm, U.S. refining production could drop as much as 17 percent from today’s levels if Waxman-Markey is enacted as currently drafted.

Moreover, the drop of oil refining would need to be made up by importing more oil from foreign countries. According to the study, the U.S. could end up relying on 19.4 percent of its refined oil from foreign countries — nearly twice the amount it imports today.

The study further claims that the legislation would decrease investment in oil by $90 billion — or roughly an 88 percent decline.

The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation on August 12, 2009 unveiled a comprehensive study of the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill, which aims to reduce GHG emissions by mandating a cap and trade program. Key findings include:

• Cumulative loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030).
• Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030.
• Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030.
• Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030.

The Heritage Foundation has released a new report titled, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″ (Waxman-Markey bill). The report analyzes the Waxman-Markey bill after it was significantly amended prior to passing the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009.

The report shows that despite the considerable amount of free allowances issued in the early years, the bill would still significantly affect energy costs. Most noteworthy, according to the report, Wisconsin would be one of the most adversely affected states by the cap-and-trade legislation.

 According to the study:

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.
• Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion (all costs cited are adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars).
• Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035.
• A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
• Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.

The study also finds that not all sectors will be affected evenly. According to the report, the construction industry would be most affected, losing 8.5 times as many of its jobs than the economy as a whole. Below are the other industries most adversely affected by Waxman-Markey:

• Textile industry - job-loss rate 7.8 times the rate of overall job loss;
• Wood products - 7.1 times the rate of overall job loss;
• Durable manufacturing - 5.9; and
• Manufacturing - 4.4.

Last, according to the report, the legislation will have added 9.1 trillion nominal dollars to the national debt, which leads to an increased tax liability of $12,803 for every American, or a $51,216 liability for a family of four.