OK. I'm still trying to report this out. What I have for now comes from environmental advocates, off-the-record conversations, and, for what it's worth, my own speculation. The situation is very fluid, and can change at any time (as in, by the time you read this). Near as I can tell, though, this is how things look going into tonight:
I've learned from concerned advocates that Democratic congressional leadership is considering stripping the production tax credits for wind and solar, along with the federal renewable portfolio standard, from the conference bill. Losing the RPS and the PTC would mean jettisoning basically every measure that the White House has complained about. Apparently, Reid and Pelosi may have decided that a bill with a Renewable Fuel Standard (i.e., monstrous subsidies for ethanol) and a boost in CAFE standards is enough to secure Democratic bragging rights on energy.
If this happens, it will mean there's bupkis in the energy bill for renewable electricity, imperiling probably billions of dollars in solar and wind contracts that have been written with the expectation that the production tax credits will lower costs to investors and consumers.
Also, as David mentioned earlier this evening, behind closed doors Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is attempting to knife the energy bill by introducing an even more horrible RFS amendment to the farm bill, thereby rendering the energy bill's much improved RFS obsolete and losing crucial support from midwestern Republicans. Reid, apparently, is threatening to block that change using a tactic called filling the amendment tree.
The details can get ugly, but basically it means that he will use his prerogative as leader of the Senate to fill all available amendment openings with amendments restating the existing language of the bill. After that, it can't be changed, but it can still be filibustered. Even if Republicans filibuster, though, the farm bill has more than enough support to get to the 60 votes needed for cloture. So Reid can prevent this change if he's willing to play hardball.
Taking all of this together -- and considering Pelosi's vocal support for renewables -- it seems very much like Reid is desperately trying to pass something. Renewable energy polls through the roof, but the obvious risk is that if he doesn't knife renewables he might run into a veto. There are rumors -- very much unconfirmed -- that Reid wants to move forward on a divided energy bill next week, with RFS and CAFE in one and RES and PTC in the other. But that would strip away a lot of his leverage on renewables, and frankly, this is a fight he should be willing to have.
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Comments
View as Threaded
JMG Posted 4:20 pm
08 Nov 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
trock Posted 12:07 am
09 Nov 2007
When the Republicans were in charge, there was the tax credits for wind and solar. There wasn't a huge downside for Republican politicians. When the Democrats are in charge, the Republicans have incentive to stop those tax credits so the Democratic base will be upset with their Democratic Politicians and give victories for the Republican base.
Democracies might be the worse form of government except for all the others, but how bad do all forms of government have to be to get there.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 am
09 Nov 2007
The party "leadership" is evidently in the hands of traitors and nitwits.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
TheGreenMiles Posted 12:38 am
09 Nov 2007
Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:32 am
09 Nov 2007
I had a moment reading this article where I felt like I was listening to a sugar cane grower in Texas. "What do mean no 5-cent subsidy, I built a 25 million dollar sugar processing facility!" Never count on the expectation for anything I guess is the lesson.
If it doesn't work without a subsidy, then perhaps the entire concept just won't ever work. The idea of price supports and subsidies was to be as "seed money" to help a market recover, emerge, or become more developed - a temporary fix. That's why the Farm Bill was passed during the Great Depression (which was never intended to stay there forever).
Ergo, if a market sector still is upside down on finances after a reasonable start-up period, then the subsidy should be withdrawn. This might have dire consequences for some solar power projects, which seem to be capital intensive and have long pay-back periods (indeed sometimes beyond the expected life of the machinery). I see better things for wind and water turbines, though. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:46 am
09 Nov 2007
It would be great to contact your Rep. and make it clear that you support the RPS and PTC, and that you won't forgive them if they abandon them. But right now, the leadership needs help and support, not this kneejerk pox-on-both-their houses stuff.
grist.org
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:38 am
09 Nov 2007
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:24 am
09 Nov 2007
I have been getting an onslaught of emails from various pro-solar groups that I am associated with, telling me to call my congresscritter in support of RPS and PTC, and making it sound like we're right on the verge of losing this critical support for renewables. Most of these emails reference a rather shrill and emphatic email by VoteSolar (which, oddly, doesn't seem to have a corresponding message on their website, as of this moment).
So, the messages coming from the activist grapevine conflict with David's statement that this is still all at the rumor and innuendo level. It'd be nice to get the story straight (and to coordinate with VoteSolar). Any updates forthcoming?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:34 am
09 Nov 2007
grist.org
Permalink
NewEnergyWorks Posted 3:40 am
09 Nov 2007
Renewable energy / environment has always been a Democratic plank, and where has this particular one gone? Did Peabody Coal buy it, or perhaps Exxon Mobil?
The United States is equivalent to the third world with regard to renewable energy usage. We, the richest country on the planet could not afford to install solar electricity or hot water, or create some renewable form of gasoline. The government has no need to do it- they get their money from fossil fuels.
Renewable energy would require manufacturing, installation, maintenance, sales, parts, and other supporting jobs. And, we would not be pouring all of our money into Saudi Arabia, etc.
I would like to know how this decision came about. Harry Reid has a nice video on his website stating how much the Senator is for supporting renewable energy and efficiency.... is this how we do it, Harry?
Permalink
pilgrims Posted 12:20 pm
13 Nov 2007
Since I have been to Washington on a few occasions to lobby on behalf of renewable energy issues, I have talked to the various staffers in the California delegation, including Boxer, Feinstein, and Pelosi. Their offices were closed on Monday, Veterans Day, so I called them today to get more of the inside scoop on the Energy Bill and the status of the renewable energy incentives. I was told by Lara Levison, a Policy Adviser in Pelosi's office, that there is no intent to drop the RPS or Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy projects, despite what has been claimed elsewhere.
I am curious to know: where did you get this information? There are a lot of shrill "alerts" flying around on this issue quoting "concerned advocates" and the like. I want to know who is the source of this? Is there any basis for this hysteria? If not, let's lower the volume and get our facts straight; otherwise we are crying "wolf", losing credibility, wasting political capital, and burning people out.
Lara did say that the Senate version of the bill, which does not not have as strong support for the ITC, was in trouble and that there was a suggestion that the sections pertaining to renewable energy incentives be removed from the Energy Bill and placed into its own bill or another bill that has better chances of passage. This may not be a bad idea.
I then called my contacts at Sen Boxer's office and Sen Feinstein's office. They were not aware of any intent to drop the ITC or RPS from the senate version of the bill, but promised to research this and get back to me. I will try to pass along their information to you so that you can get the facts straight from the source.
Many have argued that the Energy Bill as it stands today is a real stinker, with lots of giveaways to the oil, coal, and ethanol industries and only a pittance for wind, solar and similar renewable energy technologies. Perhaps it deserves to be defeated and a better bill drafted. Perhaps the best approach would be to pull the renewable energy incentives out of the Energy Bill, put them into a separate bill that we can support whole-heartedly, and let the bloated and outdated Energy Bill die a well-deserved death.
Comments?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:17 pm
13 Nov 2007
The question, of course, is how a pure renewables bill would fare. Would the Dem leadership fight for it as hard as they're pushing for an energy bill?
As I hear it, a lot of oil/gas Dems and southern Republicans are voting for the energy bill in spite of the renewable provisions, in order to get the RFS and possibly some nuke loan guarantees. If they get the latter, why would they vote for a pure renewables bill?
I guess I don't see how the RPS and ITC reach critical mass without the (admittedly lamentable) other inducements in the energy bill.
grist.org
Permalink