President Barack Obama issued a directive to Congress in his address on Tuesday night, calling for a climate bill and energy measures. Now we’re getting a clearer ideas from Congressional leaders about how they plan to respond.
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that he plans to achieve three legislative priorities to meet Obama’s goals: an energy bill, an electricity transmission bill, and later, a climate bill.
Reid discussed his transmission bill, which is likely to be released tomorrow, earlier this week. It will probably come after a forthcoming bill from Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), which is likely to include a renewable electricity standard (RES) and efficiency measures.
As for the climate bill, Reid said he intends to get one passed this year, but didn’t offer a more specific timeline: “As far as getting you a definite time, I can’t do that ... Our goal is to get that done this year.”
Over in the House, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman says he’ll have a climate bill ready by Memorial Day. Various pieces of energy legislation are also floating around the House, like an RES bill Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.) introduced several weeks ago.
And at a hearing on Wednesday morning, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said he’s planning to introduce a transmission bill in the next few weeks that will be similar to the Rural Clean Energy Superhighways Act from last Congress. An Inslee aide told Grist that like Reid’s bill, Inslee’s will include cost allocation, siting, and smart grid measures.
So nothing’s definite at this point, but at least we have the beginnings of a road map for climate and energy legislation this year.
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
Max8806 Posted 8:38 am
25 Feb 2009
Greens may like it just as an additional incentive not open to nuclear, but its worth noting it would also be near impossible to adequately reward efficiency either under an RPS. Monitoring and verifying that a lack of demand (and how much) is due to some efficiency program will be very messy to quantify, like offsets. Under a cap there's no need for the actor to prove/certify it to anyone, they just reduce emissions and benefit from the competitive advantage.
Max Epstein
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:01 am
25 Feb 2009
once there is RPS, the theory goes, big transmission lines are necessary to ship renewables from windy states to states that allegedly have less renewables available
the more sincere reform would be feed-in tariffs
then you would give incentive to many small players everywhere
but that does not maximize big utility profits
and is not part of the current plan
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 10:14 am
25 Feb 2009
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:10 pm
25 Feb 2009
While cap and trade would apply to the energy sector, it could also apply to other sectors as well (manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, etc) that would still release GHGs, no matter how much clean electricity there was.
Dependin' on the details of the RES and the cap and trade, it may (or may not) be redundant to the energy sector in some respects, but cap/trade would still be needed to address other GHG emitters.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 1:37 pm
25 Feb 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:21 pm
25 Feb 2009
Usin' the two together would limit emissions faster. Extra incentive.
Plus (though probably not a major reason why they're pushin' both at the same time), if any loopholes/backdoors appear in one part of the strategy (either cap/trade or RES), or if one bill/regulation fails to make it into reality, hopefully the other would act as a sorta "failsafe" in order to ensure that at least some type of action is bein' taken by the utilities.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 3:39 pm
25 Feb 2009
Max Epstein
Permalink
SallyVCrockett Posted 12:55 am
26 Feb 2009
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 1:48 am
26 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:14 am
26 Feb 2009
Figure out what government policy, that helps make that happen, is tax and revenue neutral. That would be easy to sell to voters who could then force lobbyist focused politicians to pass.
Solar panels that make hot water for home use and sell electricty onto the grid through a grid connected module, those can easily have a 4 year payback with modest subsidies and regulation that forces power companies to buy your home generated solar power at a reasonable price.
That will price carbon based energy comparatively with renewables and conservation by lowering the price of renewables. Pretty simple, no new taxes.
How about tying regional and local bank stimulus funds to lending for renewable energy projects at low rates with payments that adjust to power bills, so that the family budget can afford solar panels and ground source heating/air conditioning?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 2:29 am
26 Feb 2009
because feed-in tariffs are a state law issue
of course, you can get around by offering special incentives ($$$) for states that institute a feed in tariff
Waxman/Markey have juris in the House regarding FERC stuff; Bingaman in the Senate
so far, no one is talking about mandating (preemption -- tricky topic for liberals) or incentivizing feed in tariffs
Rangel/Baucus have juris over tax incentives
where there IS a big push to preempt the states is to get a blank check to put transimission lines at locations to be named later. Wonder why that is a priority, and feed-in tariff is not?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:46 am
26 Feb 2009
Pick me, pick my area, my contractor to control a chokepoint in the super grid. Maybe contributions are being solicited to steer the grid to congressmans' counsins' utility corridor holdings?
Whichever politicos, federal, state, or local have control, get the most political cash. Put ourselves in the blago state of mind (bleeech!) put on the hair hat. Yow, we want a supergrid to go through cousin ed's utility company lines. We can siphon .001 cent per kwh in perpetuity!
Just guessing ce.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink