The greenosphere is all abuzz with the news that a few Republican Senators, led by Lindsey Graham (S.C.), have signaled that they’re open to coming around on the climate bill if certain conditions are met. In classic form, Senate Dems have responded by rushing to signal they they are willing—eager, even!—to give these Republicans whatever they want.
This isn’t actually huge news. Graham and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have been fence-sitters for a while, and it’s never been a mystery what could bring them over. Graham’s public statements just mark the beginning of the bargaining process. Anyway, Bill Scher and Brad Plumer have covered this pretty well. I’d just add two things.
First, if Dems are going to compromise, they should secure real commitments in return.
Senate Dems (Barbara Boxer in particular) are notorious for telling their interlocutors that they can have whatever concession they are seeking—without getting, in exchange, any firm commitment to support the resulting bill. What happens then is that said interlocutors take what they got, put it in the bank, and immediately resume badmouthing the bill and asking for more.
This is in sharp contrast to Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass) in the House, who may have given all sorts of goodies to Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), but by God got their yea votes in return. In fact, Boucher and Peterson did yeomen’s work whipping for the bill on the floor.
If Graham, McCain, et al want their nukes and their offshore drilling, John Kerry (D-Mass.) should get their solemn pledge that they will support the bill in the face of what is sure to be immense pressure from their base to bail. Vocal, public support from the likes of Graham and McCain could shift the debate in a huge way and possibly bring several more Republicans along.
Secondly, Dems should compromise with money, not architecture.
There are at least five Senate Dems that are certain no votes on the climate bill. That means you need at least five Republican yeas. To get them, there are going to have to be provisions for nuclear power and offshore drilling. There’s no getting around it. But I don’t think things are so bleak for those who oppose both those purported solutions to our energy troubles. As long as the compromises do not mandate nukes and drilling, or write them into the architecture of the bill, things should turn out all right.
On offshore drilling, the politics are trending toward opening up new areas for leasing. Once the price of oil and gasoline rises high enough, political pressure will be irresistible. Might as well use it as a bargaining chip while there’s still something to get in exchange. As Joe Romm has argued, the fact is that even if the federal and state moratoria on drilling were lifted, there’s not a lot of reasons to think oil companies will want to lease these areas. They’re not as ignorant on this subject as the GOP and most of the public—they know these areas represent huge investments of time and money for not much payoff. That’s why there are already tons of available leases in the Gulf going unexploited.
So on offshore drilling, you have the makings of what could look like a huge concession from Dems, but could turn out to have fairly modest real-world consequences.
Nuclear has always been a strange subject. Its backers say, “nuclear can work, once we solve those pesky siting, cost, and waste issues.” Its opponents say, “nuclear can work, but only if we solve those pesky siting, cost, and waste issues.” The differences between them aren’t that large. It’s just that nuke proponents think the pesky problems can be solved, and nuclear opponents don’t.
So the key on a nuclear compromise is not to mess with the basic architecture of the bill. Specifically, Dems should resist efforts to let new nuclear plants qualify as satisfying the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).
They could increase loan guarantees and smooth out regulatory issues around siting and permitting. They could establish some sort of expert panel to figure out a waste solution. They could even make nukes eligible for the same tax credits and subsidies offered to renewables. What these compromises have in common is that they make federal assistance available if a utility wants to build nuclear plants. They do not mandate or fully fund such plants.
So if you’re a nuclear opponent and you believe that nuclear plants are never going to attract sufficient private capital, it follows that you think the result of these concessions will be ... not much. Maybe a couple of new plants. Nothing like the silly 100 plants McCain and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) keep talking about.
(Side note: Reid will never, ever concede on nuclear issues until Yucca Mountain is taken completely off the table.)
Point is, both these compromises amount to less than they appear. And if they manage to attract enough Republicans to get the bill through, I will be mind-bogglingly shocked and surprised. It would be a small price to pay, and frankly I’ve been expecting—and still expect, really—a much higher price tag.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
Jesse Jenkins Posted 4:46 pm
08 Oct 2009
On Oil: allow drilling on the outer continental shelf (OCS) and the arctic coastal plain (aka parts of ANWR). Extend state waters to 12 miles offshore (they are currently 3 miles, except in the Gulf I think, where it may be 12 already) so they have "an incentive to allow production in their waters, as they would receive a larger share of royalties." 75% of revenues would go to states if lease is offshore within 12 miles of their shore, 50% if farther than 12 miles from shore or in the Arctic plain . Interestingly enough, it looks like 90% of the remaining federal share of the royalties - or 22.5-45% of total royalty revenues depending on location - would go to a "Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund" to fund clean energy research and deployment. Now that's not a bad idea. If we're going to give them the OCS, we should get the revenues for clean energy, so we can make oil obsolete. Sweetens the pot on what you already consider not too much of a concession (although I imagine you'd have a harder time conceding ANWR than the OCS).
On Nukes: the big things they want are 1) to fast track the regulatory process to take 2 years time (now it usually takes 4 yrs) for new nukes using plant designs already certified by the NRC at sites adjacent to already operating reactors (and that meet a couple of other common sense criteria). 2) State that it is the goal of U.S. energy policy to build 100 new nukes by 2030, but they make clear this "would not mandate new reactors are built" (so who cares?). 3) extend the 30% Investment Tax Credit available to solar and other renewables to new nukes and 4) keep Yucca Mountain on the table.
I don't see anything immediately wrong with 1 or 2. 3 seems in line with your "give them money not architecture or mandates" idea. 4 just simply won't fly while Reid is majority leader, so hopefully that isn't the end of this whole idea.
All in all, not that scary if it what you want is a climate bill with 60 bipartisan votes, eh?
Now the rest of the Republican's "American Energy Act" contains a ton of shite for oil shale and the like. But it also includes provisions to make the PTC and ITC for renewables permanent, so maybe that should be part of any deal with Rs as well. If we're going to take a couple of their bad ideas, why not take a couple good ones as well, eh?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 11:34 pm
13 Oct 2009
Permalink
davescott Posted 7:10 pm
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
Miles Grant Posted 8:19 pm
08 Oct 2009
Permalink
SusanKraemer Posted 6:41 am
09 Oct 2009
It does seem that offshore drilling leases go unused, so why are they pushing for it, when their supporters (oil companies) don't care?
Permalink
Jesse Jenkins Posted 11:17 am
09 Oct 2009
Susan, you are of course correct about the Republican's hypocrisy on the PTC and ITC. But time to call their bluff, eh? They put it in their "all of the above" bill. If we're giving them anything for oil and nukes, we'd better make it a true "all of the above" plan and include their recommendations on the PTC and ITC for renewables too, right?
Permalink
Chris McMasters Posted 8:59 pm
09 Oct 2009
Carbon Tax...
Budget Reconciliation...
ah yeah...
Permalink
polidoc Posted 3:34 pm
13 Oct 2009
Stewart Brand kicked off his new book tour last weekend: http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02009/oct/09/rethinking-green/
I was in the crowd, and I along with others, felt quite uncomfortable with the idea, yet his sense of urgency, based upon a global perspective not national politics, stirred controversy and consideration.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 11:35 pm
13 Oct 2009
Permalink