This article redirects here: http://www.grist.org/Senate-climate-bill-reactions

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

What to make of the new climate poll

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

There've been some weird goings-on in Congress around the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill over the past few days. So let's take a step back and try to get a handle on how the story is unfolding.

In the House, the development of the Waxman-Markey bill was a relatively orderly process. Waxman took control of the Energy committee early in the session and selected Markey, who'd been fleshing out a progressive bill in his special committee, as his wingman. Together they introduced a bill and then worked it past the committee members, making concessions when necessary, mostly behinds closed doors, always tightly in control of the process. The idea was to do the bulk of the negotiating in-committee so that the resulting bill could pass on the floor without undue fuss. In the end that's just what happened.

Boxer desperately wanted to play the same role in the Senate. It didn't work out in early 2008 with the Lieberman-Warner bill, but she's been working overtime to make it work this go-round. One recurring theme of last week's three-day hearing marathon was Boxer's refrain that she's going to work with other senators, that the bill will change, that she's open to feedback. She practically hung out an "Open for Business" sign. She clearly wants to run this bill and emulate Waxman's success.

Just as badly, lots of other people don't want her to. Baucus made it clear early on that his committee would mark up a bill too, and then other committees jumped in. Inside EPW, James Inhofe desperately wants to give Boxer a black eye. That's why he and the rest of the committee Republicans boycotted the markup of the bill on Tuesday and Wednesday and show every sign of carrying on with that boycott. It now looks like EPW is going to pass a bill out of committee without a Republican ever having touched or debated it and without substantial markup of any kind. [UPDATE: Yep, the bill passed out of committee on Thursday morning without any GOP involvement.]

That bill will be a dead letter. Already there's an undercurrent of anxiety in Washington that a bill can never pass as long as it's associated with an unpopular lady senator who runs one of the body's most liberal committees. The Senate isn't like the House. There is no party discipline among Democrats; in fact, Democratic senators are fond of explicitly disclaiming party discipline. It's a chamber full of large, jostling egos and not a little old-boy sexism. They're not about to let a combative liberal woman run the show.

So a bill that's Pure Boxer won't fly. That's why you saw, on Wednesday, the Senate's perceived centrists -- Kerry, Graham, and their new buddy Joe Lieberman -- swoop in and and open a "dual track" of negotiations, in consultation with the White House. (Lieberman lives to do this kind of thing.) Graham seemed to rebuke his colleagues on the EPW Committee: "If you can't participate in solving the problem, then why are you up here?" he asked. But at the same time he, along with fellow moderates Gregg, Snowe, and Collins, signed a letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson reiterating the Republicans' essentially preposterous demand for another five weeks of study of the bill.

An EPA official testified to EPW on Tuesday that such a study would be expensive, time-consuming, and utterly unnecessary. There's no substantive rationale whatsoever for demanding it. Remember, though, this isn't about substance -- it's the Senate. It's about perception. And what moderate Republicans are signaling here is: "Whoa, slow down the crazy liberal lady!"

Similarly, by stepping in, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are letting the political establishment know that the Very Serious grown-ups are back in charge. (It's pretty telling that Kerry feels the need to craft another bill alongside the one with his name on it.) They will go to the White House, close the door, and hash out what kind of bill can really pass.

In short, it seems that Boxer's high-water mark of influence on the bill has passed, and with a fizzle rather than a bang.

-----

Addendum: I should emphasize: this is all perception. Is Boxer really a crazy liberal? No. Was she jamming a liberal bill through her committee too quickly? No, the bill was relatively modest, similarly to the intensely analyzed House bill, and she was being almost absurdly solicitous of the feedback of the committee's Republicans. Is Boxer too abrasive to do the delicate work of shepherding a bill through the Senate? Well, there may be something to that. In Congress it's all about staff, and D.C. rumor has it that Boxer's staff director, Bettina Poirier, is a controlling and alienating presence. EPW has been hemorrhaging key staff for a while now, and more than one Senate staffer has a tale of being misled or bypassed entirely by Boxer's staff during negotiations over the bill. All those stories feed the general sentiment that Boxer just shouldn't be the one running this. Fair or not, that's the perception, and perception is reality in the Senate.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still does not know the exact number of coal ash dumps at the nation's power plants, but it's moving ahead with plans to regulate them.

Those are among the findings of a report [PDF] released last week by the Government Accountability Office on the status of EPA's efforts to improve oversight of coal combustion waste. The GAO is an independent, nonpartisan watchdog agency that serves Congress.

The report was prepared in response to a request from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Their request came following the December 2008 coal ash spill disaster from a surface impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston plant in eastern Tennessee.

That spill covered more than 300 acres with toxic waste, destroyed three homes and damaged 23 others, damaged nearby roads and rail lines, and sent toxic pollution into the nearby Emory River. TVA has estimated it could cost as much as $1.2 billion to clean up the mess and take up to three years.

As of mid-September, the EPA had identified over 580 coal ash waste surface impoundments nationwide, GAO reports. A surface impoundment is a depression, excavation, or diked area where the liquid coal waste is stored. Sometimes the solids in the waste are left to accumulate in the impoundment, while in other cases they are dredged periodically and taken to another disposal unit, such as a landfill.

Coal ash is also disposed of through minefilling, where it's dumped into abandoned mines. And a significant amount of the coal combustion waste produced at power plants goes to manufacture products such as cement and wallboard or structural fill for roads and other development, an application known under the law as "beneficial use."

Of the 131 million tons of coal combustion waste generated by U.S. utilities in 2007, 38 percent went toward so-called beneficial uses, 36 percent into landfills, 21 percent into surface impoundments, and 5 percent into mines, according to the GAO. Between 2000 and 2006 alone, power companies reported dumping into surface impoundments and landfills coal ash waste containing more than 124 million pounds of six toxic pollutants: arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, and thallium.

Among the risks associated with surface impoundments are collapses such as the one at the Kingston plant; the leaching of coal ash contaminants such as arsenic, chromium, and lead into surface or groundwater supplies; and the discharge of wastewater containing coal ash contamination into rivers and other surface water supplies.

Following the Kingston disaster, the EPA sent out information requests to 162 electric generation facilities and 61 corporate offices in an efforts to gather information on coal waste surface impoundments. It's created a database with information on 584 surface impoundments or similar facilities in 35 states -- but the EPA says this number is likely to change as it conducts site visits.

Over the past 10 years, 26 facilities have reported spills or other unpermitted releases from a total of 35 surface impoundments. EPA has also identified 49 impoundments that have a high hazard potential rating, meaning that a failure would probably kill people.

The EPA is further assessing these potentially dangerous units. It's also considering whether to regulate the structural integrity of coal ash waste surface impoundments through wastewater discharge permits -- a move that came one day after three environmental groups announced they planned to sue the agency for failing to properly regulate such discharges.

The EPA recently completed a study of toxins in wastewater discharges from coal ash impoundments [PDF]. It concluded that current guidelines should be revised because of the significant toxic releases from impoundments and the likelihood that these will increase significantly over the next few years as new air pollution controls are installed.

The GAO report looked at federal oversight issues that still need to be resolved as EPA develops proposed regulations for coal ash waste disposal. It noted that while the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 is the key federal law regulating hazardous waste, a 1980 amendment to the law sponsored by now-deceased Congressman Tom Bevill (D-Ala.) exempted coal combustion waste from RCRA.

EPA is considering several options for regulating the material:

* Regulating the waste as hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C. While supported by environmental groups, this approach is opposed by the industry because of the potential cost and complexity.

* Regulating the waste as non-hazardous solid waste under RCRA Subtitle D. This approach is supported by industry but opposed by environmental groups because EPA could not routinely inspect disposal sites or require permits and because the opportunity for public involvement in permits would be limited.

* A hybrid approach in which the material would be regulated as ordinary solid waste under certain conditions or a hazardous waste under others, such as designating wet disposal in surface impoundments as hazardous and dry waste in landfills as non-hazardous.

Lisa Evans, a coal ash expert with the environmental law firm Earthjustice, told the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette's Coal Tattoo Blog that she had concerns about the hybrid regulatory approach, noting that dry disposal of coal ash waste also presents significant risks to health and the environment:

... [I]t would be a big mistake for EPA to leave landfilling entirely to the states. Current state laws are inadequate, and they will likely remain inadequate without EPA's hazardous designation.

EPA plans to issue its proposed rule on coal ash disposal next month.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Minority members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) followed through on their threat to boycott the scheduled markup of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) today, demanding more analysis of the bill before they are willing to participate. Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proceeded anyway with opening statements from Committee Democrats, and George Voinovich (R-OH), who tried to make the case for the Minority, presenting a more reasonable face than Jim Inhofe (R-OK) the ranking Republican on the Committee.

Voinovich's arguments fell flat in the face of effective rebuttals by Committee Democrats and a skillful appearance by David McIntosh, EPA's Associated Administrator for Congressional Affairs. McIntosh appeared before the Committee to defend EPA's analysis of S.1733 and answer any questions Senators might have. The Republicans who claimed to have so many questions about EPA's analysis did not bother to show up for this opportunity, suggesting that they weren't really all that interested in getting answers after all.

In fact, the information Republicans say they want is already available and they have not accepted the results of such analyses in the past.

Key points to keep in mind about this dispute include:

Economic analyses of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation by EPA, EIA, CBO and independent analysts all show that such legislation will not interfere with robust economic growth. There is no reason to believe that delaying Committee action for additional computer runs would change any votes on the Committee given the extensive analysis that is already available.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

The third and final day of the hearings on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill wrapped up in the Senate Environment and Public Works committee today. We’ve been collecting the best reactions an d analysis on our aggregation page. Here’s a quick rundown of where things stand.

The wrap: Really, not much exciting news came out of the hearing. This was the big show enviros had been waiting for, but it’s largely just that: a show. Senators largely stuck to their scripts. For that matter, Dave’s summary of hearing day one more or less applied to the next two days.

The timing: The big question is when things happen next. Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told reporters she plans to begin the process of voting in committee next Tuesday. Republicans don’t like that idea; they want a lengthy EPA study first. If Boxer presses forward, Republicans’ only option for stopping her is refusing to show up—the majority needs two of the committees seven Republicans in attendance in order to establish a quorum for the markup. Riveting, isn’t it?

The Max Baucus factor: He’s still a problem. The Democrat from the coal-dependent Montana continues to demand more funding for so-called clean coal, Greenwire reports.

The grass never looked greener.Photo courtesy of Action Factor DCThe sideshow: The fun theatrics today took place over in the House, where Ed Markey (D-Mass.) led a fun little get-together with lobbyists working for the coal industry who sent fraudulent letters to Congress this summer, pretending to represent Hispanic, African-American, and senior groups.

Steve Miller, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, told the House panel that his group never opposed the House clean energy, a claim rather obviously contradicted by the group’s own press release.

Members of the Action Factory DC showed up in Astroturf-cover suits to join the fun—one even shook the hand of coal lobbyist Jack Bonner. Have a look:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Barbara Boxer (at podium) and John Kerry (tall guy in blue tie) introduce their climate bill.Photo:

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

When it comes to the debate over climate and energy legislation, there are those in Congress and business for whom any bill will always be too much, and there are lawmakers and environmental groups for whom no bill will ever be tough enough. In between the two extremes, there are the middle paths, variously labeled as "centrist," "moderate," or "compromise" alternatives. Some of these are more viable than others, some are well-defined proposals, and some are just talking points being pushed by coalitions of like-minded senators who want a hand in shaping a final bill.

How do you get 60 senators to agree on a single ice cream order?SeRVe61 via FlickrIn reality, most of them are just variations on the larger theme. Senators of all stripes are screaming for some kind of climate and energy bill, but like schoolkids at the ice cream parlor, each is crying out for a different flavor. But at this particularly unfair ice cream parlor, the kids all have to share the same helping, begging the question: Is there one flavor that can please at least 60 senators and get the backing of the House?

Handicapping the various approaches in the Senate isn't easy. Honestly, no single proposal has a chance of winding up as the final favorite. It's more likely the final climate and energy bill will be a mix of flavors, more sundae than ice cream cone.

The thing about ice-cream sundaes is that they're rarely good when crafted by committee. Once the Senate is done ordering, will we wind up with a pleasing dessert or a sticky mess? It all depends on how strong your stomach is.

There's a strong bloc of coal-state senators who have already made their feelings clear: They want giveaways for coal. There was a similar movement in the House, and as a result its Waxman-Markey bill ended up with a strong coal flavor. The problem with adding coal to the mix is that for a lot of other lawmakers, it ruins the climate bill. If a good, pure climate bill is a scoop of vanilla, the plan to include incentives for greenhouse gas–emitting utilities (and exceptions for coal mines) is the equivalent of adding a big dollop of coffee ice cream. It has a distinct flavor, and any amount of it tinges anything it melts into.

Unfortunately for coal haters, this flavor is likely to be dropped in the middle of our sundae ... highly likely. It happened with Waxman-Markey, and for the predictable reasons (like the big coal lobby, inclusion of powerful coal-state Dems in the middle of the process, etc.) it's going to happen again.

A proposal from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) offers a different take on cap-and-trade. Written from the left of Kerry-Boxer and just 32-pages long, it's a pint-sized piece of legislation [PDF] that turns the cap-and-trade equation on its head (it doesn't bother with a complicated trading system -- it starts at the top where the carbon enters the system and caps it there). Unlike Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer, both of which would give away substantial portions of any carbon credits, Cantwell's proposal requires that 100 percent of the credits be purchased by the industries that need them, making it a proposal that only a true liberal could love.

Cantwell's plan would push the flavor of the sundae away from coffee (er, coal) to something more natural tasting. But like a good Ben and Jerry's flavor, as well intentioned as the folks behind it are, it's going to be a niche flavor. There are some good arguments that it would make the cap-and-trade process smoother -- limiting carbon by focusing on energy inputs, rather than emissions -- and some of that may be reflected in the final bill. But it's just not appealing to enough people to ever be the No. 1 brand.

Most on the right side of the Senate would rather not see a climate and energy bill at all -- many still won't admit there's either a climate problem or an energy problem that can't be solved with coal. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), however, has been quite active in promoting a plan for expanding nuclear power. Not so long ago, it was thought Alexander might actually come to the table with some kind of serious proposal, but lately, he's seemed more interested in taking the wind out of the clean-energy movement.

His proposal to build 100 nuclear plants in the next 20 years seems kind of grandiose (there are only 104 commercial nuclear plants operating in the country now, and not one has been brought online since 1996), bordering on disingenuous. Alexander's "concern" about non-nuclear energy sources is how much space they take up -- wind energy, for example, apparently leads to energy sprawl, and that poses a threat to his beloved Great Smoky Mountains (good thing all those upwind coal plants aren't a threat ...).

Yes, Alexander does have a point that nuclear energy is a low-carbon solution, but it's hardly without environmental concerns. Between his sales pitch for nuclear as a space-saver and it's kind-of-creepy, decidedly unnatural downsides, it's only fitting that Alexander would be asking for a big scoop of that dehydrated horror -- space ice cream. And as much as many environmentalists hate it, there will probably be some of the freeze-dried nuclear flavoring dumped on top of whatever climate and energy bill ekes into the law books. It won't be the 100 nuclear plants that Alexander is calling for, though... for the same reasons we don't make ice cream sundaes out of space ice cream -- it's too unnatural and too creepy for too many people.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was the original cap-and-trade guy, back when he was a moderate with cred on both sides of the aisle. Rumor has it he's back at it again, trying to tie together the coal-state Dems and the nuclear-loving moderate conservatives.

But Lieberman's flavor is kind of like Neapolitan ice cream -- OK in theory, but who wants something that isn't really vanilla, isn't really chocolate, and isn't really strawberry? (Coincidentally, it apparently freeze-dries into space ice cream very well.) Maybe 30 years ago, the Senate was the kind of place where that "little bit for everyone in the same plastic tub" mentality prevailed, but today the upper house is a highly partisan place.

What's most likely to happen with Lieberman's proposal is it will provide an opening for the nuclear folks to push for a strong nuclear title. In fact, it's already happening -- Senate Dems who want a deal on climate so badly are already doing just that. Lieberman has been instrumental in getting Kerry to sit down with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.), a Republican who says he doesn't want to be the party of "angry white men" (and even suggested angry men should leave a town hall meeting if they didn't like him paling around with Kerry).

Graham and Kerry's joint proposal calls for expanded use of natural gas and nuclear, offshore drilling, and protections for U.S. industry faced with competing against less-carbon-concerned foreign competitors. But for every voice hailing the joint offering as an answer, there are two furious voices complaining. And let's not forget, Graham isn't endorsing the current draft legislation -- in fact, he's quite openly trying to replace the cap-and-trade that's already been written (or to use his words at 1:29, "make sure it's dead.")

Track the debate and take action >>>

The climate bill will change from what we first knew as the Kerry-Boxer bill. On Oct. 27, when hearings on the bill are scheduled to start, it may very literally be like standing in line at the ice cream parlor with 100 school kids -- some screaming exuberantly, others having a temper tantrum, and more than a few crying because their scoop fell on the floor. The rest of us aren't getting any ice cream until they've all been placated.

Oh, and by the way: After you convince your school-bus load of senators to dig into the compromise sundae, you've got to figure out how to get at least 218 House members on board too. A razor-thin majority of representatives ate at the same ice cream parlor earlier this year, and not many left with a good taste in their mouths.

There are some who are just desperate to get any climate bill at all -- they may be willing to stomach whatever pile of melting ice cream is plopped in their bowl by these unruly kids. Of course, there are also those who have checked out and want no part of the process.

As the climate bill meanders its way through the Senate over the next month or so, all sides will need to stop hoping for a bill that meets every one of their criteria. Reaching a compromise, as the debate over health care reform is already showing, will come down to a key question: How much are the Democrats willing to give away in order to secure one or two votes from the other side of the aisle? Or, more simply: how badly do they really want ice cream?

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

When Kerry and Boxer introduced their clean energy bill earlier this month, it contained a huge gap: it said almost nothing about the allocation of pollution allowances under the cap-and-tr... er, pollution reduction and investment program. The reason for the omission is simple: Doling out what is effectively a huge new pot of money is a subject of considerable interest to many senators, and it's expected to help bring some recalcitrant Democrats on board. The Energy & Natural Resources Committee, under Jeff Bingaman, is holding a hearing on the subject today.

The politics around allowance allocation are interesting. The key fact to understand is that the distribution of allowances doesn't change the overall cost or environmental effectiveness of the program (at least according to mainstream economics). Here's how Harvard economics prof. Robert Stavins puts it:

the allocation of allowances -- whether the allowances are auctioned or given out freely, and how they are freely allocated -- has no impact on the equilibrium distribution of allowances (after trading), and therefore no impact on the allocation of emissions (or emissions abatement), the total magnitude of emissions, or the aggregate social costs.

Since allowance distribution doesn't affect the overall costs of the program, you won't get deficit hawks nagging you about it. Since it doesn't affect the cap on carbon, you won't get environmentalists nagging you about it. (I've had numerous people at bigtime green groups tell me straight-up that they don't care how allocation goes as long as the cap is preserved.) It's basically a special interest free-for-all, and econ-minded enviros like Stavins see that as a feature, not a bug -- it is, he says, a "useful, important, and fundamentally benign mechanism." Having free money to hand out means that "ordinary political pressures need not get in the way of developing and implementing a scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically pragmatic policy." Translation: you can buy off everybody you need and still get the CO2 reductions you want, all with the CBO's official stamp of deficit neutrality.

Your honor, I object! Here's the thing about handing out money: it may not affect long-term macroeconomic outcomes, but it does leave its recipients with more money. It may not affect how much we collectively pay, but it does affect who pays, particularly in the short-term. Resource distribution involves fundamental questions of economic fairness. Are progressive greens really happy to dismiss those issues as insignificant diversions? What would that signal to their potential allies in labor, social justice, religious, and anti-poverty groups? Distributional issues may seem like an addendum to affluent, highly educated white folks in universities, think tanks, and green NGOs, but they are central to the economic fate of today's voters -- not to mention the electoral fate of their representatives in Congress.

Happily, the politics of pollution permits are propitiously populist (yeah, I said it). Here's why: pollution allowances handed out for free to private businesses and industries distort the carbon price signal and lead to consumers paying more than they otherwise would. In other words, many of the allocation provisions greens like least -- the handouts to merchant coal generators, the LDC allocations -- hurt the middle class.

This oughtta-be-legendary graph from CBO testimony tells the tale:

On the top left is a cap-and-dividend program, where all allowances are auctioned and the revenue is returned to taxpayers via a lump-sum rebate. On the top right is 100% free allocations to polluters. As you can see, the former policy helps low and middle income brackets; the latter almost exclusively benefits the rich. The bottom is the overall effect on GDP, which is the same in either instance.

The case is also made in a paper from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called, appropriately enough, "Changing Climate Bill To Give More Allowances To Electric Utilities Would Likely Hurt, Not Help, Consumers." One of the co-authors, Chad Stone, will be testifying in front of Bingaman's committee today.

Another economist who's done good work in this area is Dallas Burtraw of Resources for the Future, who testified to Congress earlier this year on the issue: "The increase in costs associated with the inefficient allocation to local distribution companies falls hardest on the middle range of household incomes." His colleague Karen Palmer, another specialist in the area, is also testifying today.

The other witnesses are Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf and MIT's Denny Ellerman, both fans of auctioning over freely allocating permits. It'll be interesting to see if the hearing turns into an occasion to bash the allocation scheme worked out in Waxman-Markey -- which could be prelude to ENR attempting to rewrite it.

Regardless, the political take-home message is: Corporate groups like the Edison Electric Institute, which are lobbying for more free allowances, are lobbying against, not for, the interests of most taxpayers in conservative Dem states. Yet Conservative Dem senators worried about the effect of the legislation on taxpayers in their states are often the very ones lobbying for more corporate handouts. If they can be made to see that ... well, it might not change anything. They get plenty of campaign contributions from dirty energy industries. But at least the fight should be joined, and the real nature of the dispute made clear: Free allowances to polluters do not contain costs for consumers, they increase them. They're pure corporate handouts. Fighting to insure that the poor and middle class don't get screwed is the sine qua non of progressivism. Greens neglect this issue at their peril.

---

How will this crucial piece of policy architecture get worked out? It's not quite clear yet. Boxer says the manager's amendment of her bill is ready to go and will include a section on allowance allocations. That bill will be debated in Environment & Public Works Committee hearings next week, and likely marked up in early November. Finance chair Max Baucus has said that his committee will do a mark-up as well (they held a hearing on allowance allocation in August), but lately he's backed off a little -- it's a toss-up whether he'll get involved. And then there's the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, under Jeff Bingaman, which is holding a hearing today on "the costs and benefits for energy consumers and energy prices associated with the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances." That may signal that ENR wants to throw its hat in the ring as well.

Ultimately Harry Reid is going to have to pull all the bills together into something that can survive floor debate. That'll be a tough job, and there will be considerable pressure on him to bribe the holdouts with allowances. It would be nice if progressives starting putting some pressure on him in the other direction, so he doesn't feel entirely free to give away the store.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

Here's how the first line of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act [PDF] begins: "Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill ..."

See whose name is first there?

It's not "Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer introduced" either. He's introducing it. This is John Kerry's bill. Boxer has signed on as a co-sponsor.

Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.

It's widely acknowledged that Boxer bungled the Lieberman-Warner bill last year, particularly in managing (or not, as the case may be) the floor debate. And there are rumors that she's already stepped on toes and pissed a bunch of people off in the process of putting this bill together. For instance, earlier this month a group of eight Dem senators sent Boxer some legislative language on carbon capture and sequestration. They said it was "imperative" for her to include the language in the bill, not language senators use lightly. These were exactly the swing Dems Boxer will need votes from: Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.), Arlen Specter (Penn.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey Jr. (Penn.), and Joe Lieberman (Conn.). Suffice to say, the language isn't in the bill.

Some of the grumbling is probably just the typical Capitol rumor-mongering, and some is undoubtedly related to the fact that she's a strong woman who speaks bluntly, but perception is reality in D.C., and for whatever reason, Dems don't have faith that Boxer can manage this process. She's just not that well liked -- except by Reid, which is why he allowed her to stay on as co-sponsor.

Kerry's Senate record isn't exactly littered with major accomplishments either, but from all accounts he's completely thrown himself into this. It'll be a real test of his chops, and if he defies the odds and shepherds it all the way to passage, he will finally have the Kennedy-sized accomplishment he's always wanted.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

The new Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act gives progressives a second chance to influence climate legislation, if we learn the right lessons from both the legislative process for the House climate bill and the ongoing health care debate.

Many progressives have varying degrees of frustration with both processes, but the fact is the progressive grassroots has had more impact in the health care debate than the climate debate.

With health care, progressives picked their target and picked it early: the public option. There are a myriad of elements to health care reform, but focusing on one fundamental, easy to understand component channeled grassroots energy.

The push for the public option -- an idea that wasn't even in existence two years ago -- began before any bill was even drafted. Most progressive organizations, led by the Health Care for America Now coalition, prioritized the public option and launched grassroots actions that put pressure on lawmakers. Progressive media outlets put their spotlight on the early legislative maneuvering around public option, letting progressive citizens know that their efforts were needed and who needed persuading.

Now, four bills that have cleared House or Senate committees include a public option. The Senate Finance Committee may have rejected it. The final outcome remains uncertain. But it is indisputable that early, focused activism allowed progressive voices to be heard when it mattered, making a significant impact.

The House climate bill process was another story. Environmental groups were split on policy objectives. There was no single policy target to focus grassroots energy. Progressive media outlets, as well as traditional media, ignored the early legislative maneuvering. Progressive citizens simply had no idea that climate deals were being worked out, and so, we missed our chance to influence the negotiations.

Rep. Henry Waxman, climate bill point person with unquestionable progressive credentials, was left with no grassroots wind at his back while working with the significant number of Democrats from coal, oil and agriculture producing districts. He did the best he could to compromise without undermining the integrity of the carbon cap. I argued the compromise passes the threshold of acceptability, but many progressives were surprised and frustrated upon learning of the compromises to the fossil fuel lobby.

Regardless of your support for the House bill, it is indisputable it would have been a better bill if the progressive grassroots were engaged earlier and focused on a clear target.

Now, the process starts anew in the Senate with the Kerry-Boxer bill.

Fortunately, Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry did the right thing to spark grassroots energy. They introduced a stronger bill than the House version, in defiance of the conventional wisdom than any Senate bill would have to weaker than the House.

Despite the nonsensical whining and ingratitude from coal-state Dem senators, who pretended that Rep. Waxman didn't spend months crafting difficult compromises with fossil fuel interests specifically to make them happy, Sens. Boxer and Kerry embraced a more aggressive short-term target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions -- 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, versus 17 percent in the House bill -- and restored EPA authority to regulate emissions.

So we are not just playing defense in the Senate. We can get back on offense. And offense is more enticing for the grassroots.

But to play effective offense, you need to know what the goal is.

The environmental community remains split -- roughly between those who believe we immediately need a drastically more aggressive bill to get the world under 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and those who believe a bill that would keep us from reaching 450 at least gets us started and establishes a framework for even bolder action later.

But those organizations more inclined to support the basic framework of pending legislation appear to be coordinating better among themselves, having forged a new Clean Energy Works coalition.

However, the question remains if they plan to pick a single policy goal to channel grassroots energy towards. The 20% short-term target for cutting emissions? EPA authority to regulate emissions? Maybe going after the coal subsidies or potential loopholes in the carbon offset provisions.

Good arguments could be made for any of those, and it's not for one blog post to arbitrarily decree what the best target would be.

But I do contend the lesson from the past year is that single target is needed, if we are best channel grassroots energy.

And without grassroots energy, it will be extremely hard to pressure the 18 Democratic senators from coal country that can deny us even a simple majority. Ask Henry Waxman.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

The final bill will not be unveiled until tomorrow, but Senators Kerry and Boxer (and their cosponsers) have managed to put together a bill that I believe is environmentally, economically and politically stronger than the House bill.

The Washington Post reports:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will unveil a bill Wednesday that aims for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by the year 2020, according to several sources and a close-to-final version of the bill obtained by The Washington Post.

Note: While that 800-page bill linked to above may be “close to final,” it will change in many places, so I would not rely on it too heavily for specific details.  Indeed, Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports an aide to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying, “It’s a snapshot in time of our restructure of the [House] bill, but it doesn’t really reflect where the bill is now.”

Certainly 20% is better than the House’s 17% — and more than justified by both the science and recent emissions trends (see “EIA stunner: By year’s end, we’ll be 8.5% below 2005 levels of CO2 — halfway to climate bill’s 2020 target“).

Unlike the Waxman-Markey bill, the Senate proposal preserves the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate large sources of greenhouse gases, such as coal-fired power pants.

That’s a good change, but it’ll be a huge fight to keep it.

“It’s clearly stronger than the House bill,” said Frank O’Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “This very well may be the high-water mark for strong action on climate in this Congress, since it will face many efforts to erode it as it moves through the Senate.”

CP readers will not be surprised if that target changes as the bill winds its way through the Senate — and your 60 seconds to cry about that political reality is over …. now.  The bill keeps the key House targets of 42% cut by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

The Senate bill also aims to ease concerns among both Democrats and Republicans about the expanding carbon footprints of China and India, by requiring the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a report each year “regarding whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as strict as those standards required under this Act.”

If the administrator of the agency “determines that China and India have not adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as stringent as those set forth in this Act, the Administrator shall notify each Member of Congress of his determination, and shall release his determination to the media,” the draft bill states.

Not quite how I might have phrased the language, but then I didn’t write it.

The bill makes a monumental improvement over the House bill by adopting a version of the carbon collar I proposed, as discussed here:  In a “a sharp departure from the House measure,” Boxer climate bill to adopt a price collar for allowance auction.

The floor price is $11 (the draft bill above is, as I say, not final) and the ceiling is $28 — and they both starting rising 5% plus inflation each year.  The draft bill adds an excellent twist — from 2018 on the ceiling rises 7% plus inflation each year.  I hope that is true of the floor, also.  I’ll report back on that as soon as I know.

Fence-sitting Senators and industries can legitimately see the Carbon Collar as achieving stronger cost-containment protection than their analysis suggests the House bill now provides, including protection against speculators running the permit price up, while progressives can legitimately see it as achieving better environmental outcomes than their analysis suggests the House bill now provides. Win-win.

The bill also has stronger oversight of the carbon market, and since this is a major sticking point for many senators, I’m sure the language will get tougher:

Boxer and Kerry propose a different approach for oversight of the carbon market, which in the House bill is shared between FERC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, with FERC regulating the cash market for allowances and offsets and CFTC handling the derivatives market.

The draft Senate plan, in contrast, would place the carbon markets under a single regulator — the brief carbon market section would have CFTC regulate both markets. It also broadly empowers the regulator to prevent manipulation of these markets and eliminate “excessive speculation” that adds to price volatility.

Lawmakers are likely to seek more detailed provisions that place controls on these markets.

The bill will have more support for coal with CCS (see “Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) joins key Dems in proposal to boost carbon capture and storage in climate bill“).  The sponsors are working hard to get Byrd to agree to support cloture, to be one of the 60 Senators needed to stop the inevitable, immoral filibuster by anti-science conservatives.  I mostly don’t care how much money they offer to CCS, since I doubt many such plants will be built, so I doubt most of that money will be spent.  The key point, though, is to make sure the final bill only subsidizes and incentivizes the incremental cost for CCS — and not the coal plant itself.

You can bet on both a strong natural gas title and a strong nuclear title in the final Senate bill — neither of which can be found in the House bill.

The Senate draft also has a modest nuclear title, although pro-nuclear senators are likely to push for significant incentives in the final measure. The bill’s nuclear title would steer money to the Energy Department for implementing programs to expand expertise in the nuclear field. Advocates of expanding U.S. nuclear power say there are not enough nuclear engineers and other experts to work on the hoped-for buildout of new reactors.

The nuclear title also has a section titled “Nuclear Waste Research and Development,” but it is left blank, stating “to be supplied.”

Again, one can throw money at nukes, but they have priced themselves out of the market for the foreseeable future — see “Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid.”

UPDATE:  E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reports on the natural gas incentives in the bill:

In an attempt to lure new advocates for the bill, the latest Boxer-Kerry draft would provide incentives for deploying natural gas-fired power plants beyond what the House climate bill provides.

The bill would establish an incentive fund to reward power generation sources that “replace or retire” power plants whose emissions exceed the 2007 average greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt-hour rate of the U.S. electric power sector and that do not receive a production or investment tax credit the year they are placed in service or in 2009. To receive the incentives, the replacement units must reduce emissions by increasingly steep levels below the 2007 targets through 2030.

Natural gas could qualify under the provision both as a fuel that produces 50 percent less carbon dioxide emissions than coal and as backup generation for wind, solar and other intermittent renewable energy. Intermittent backup resources are another category that would qualify for the incentives.

The draft is going to change many, many times in the coming weeks:

Both the early draft and the Boxer-Kerry bill due for release tomorrow will leave blank key information about how the senators intend to distribute hundreds of billions of dollars in emission allowances. Following the path of Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, those figures will come next month when Boxer releases a chairman’s mark of the bill before an EPW Committee markup….

Boxer plans to release another version of the legislation in mid-October as a chairman’s mark. Hearings are also expected next month, with an EPW Committee markup before November. Several other Senate committees are also planning to weigh in, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) the ultimate judge on what the bill looks like before the floor debate.

And it may not change in ways that progressives like:

Tony Kreindler, spokesman for the advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund, sent an e-mail to reporters Tuesday morning cautioning that the bill likely would change markedly in the coming weeks as the Senate Finance and Agriculture Committee weighs in, along with several centrist legislators who want to modify it, such as Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.)

“Though the process sounds daunting, complex processes are part and parcel of passing major legislation,” Kreindler wrote. “The most important thing is that the draft be taken for what it is: a starting point that Senators can work with, tailor, and pass.”

Exactly.  What matters is the bill that ends up on Obama’s desk.

I’ll end with an excerpt from the post I wrote after Waxman-Markey passed the House:

My Salon piece, “One brief shining moment for clean energy” [notes] “the country can only contemplate serious environmental legislation when we have the unique constellation of a Democratic president and [large] Democratic majorities in both houses, an occurrence far rarer than a total eclipse of the sun.”

This bill would complete America’s transition to a clean energy economy, which was begun in the stimulus (see “EIA projects wind at 5% of U.S. electricity in 2012, all renewables at 14%, thanks to Obama stimulus!“).  Within four decades, the vast majority of American’s carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel consumption will be replaced by the technologies discussed here:  “An introduction to the core climate solutions.”

This bill makes possible an international deal in Copenhagen this December….

As Nobelist Gore wrote earlier today, there was no “backup plan”….

The Kerry-Boxer bill is now the only game in town.

If you want a clean energy future with millions of clean energy jobs, this is the bill.  If you want a chance at a global climate deal and hence a chance at preserving a livable climate, this is the bill.  If you want to shut down most of the dirty coal plants in this country in two decades, this is the bill.

We’re all going to have to fight as hard as possible to keep this bill as strong as possible.  This bill is key to taking back control of America’s future from Big Oil, the corporate polluters and their lobbyists, and you can be sure they are going to fight as hard — and as dirty — as possible to kill it.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

In some hopeful news for sustainable energy advocates, the latest production numbers from the federal government are out -- and they show that the growth rate of renewable sources continues to outpace nuclear and fossil fuels.

The data come as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) are expected to introduce legislation today designed to curb man-made climate change, with hearings on their bill  -- a counterpart to the one that narrowly passed the House in June -- expected to begin early next month.

While the politics of the climate bill are likely to be even more contentious than health reform, some note with optimism that a shift toward renewables is already underway.

"As Congress debates energy funding priorities and climate legislation, it would do well to take note of the clear trends in the nation's changing energy mix," says Ken Bossong, executive director of the SUN DAY Campaign, a Maryland-based nonprofit research organization that promotes sustainable energy technologies. "Renewable energy has become a major player -- growing rapidly and nipping at the heels of nuclear power -- while fossil fuel use continues to drop."

According to the latest issue of the Monthly Energy Review published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable energy sources -- biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind -- provided 11.37% of domestic U.S. energy production in June 2009, the most recent month for which data is available. That represents a gain since the first half of 2007, when renewable sources accounted for 9.89% of domestic energy production, and from the same period last year, when they represented 10.2% of production.

At the same time, EIA's latest Electric Power Monthly reports that renewable energy sources provided 11.18% of net U.S. electrical generation for the first six months of 2009 -- a significant gain over renewables' 9.9% share for the first half of 2008.

Renewable energy sources grew by 4.62% during the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. Most of that growth came from wind and hydropower, which expanded by 24.54% and 7.14% respectively in the first half of 2009 compared to the first half of 2008.

In comparison, nuclear power increased by only 1.38%, while domestic fossil fuel production actually dropped by 0.7%. Meanwhile, overall consumption of fossil fuels -- including imports -- declined 7.67%.

The numbers for renewable energy are likely to grow even more in the coming months as planned projects get underway.

Those include a new North Carolina effort to develop offshore wind power. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy and UNC-Chapel Hill are finalizing a contract that would have the company build one to three wind towers in Pamlico Sound while UNC researchers would study environmental impacts, maintenance and other related issues.

At the same time, though, Duke Energy is still investing heavily in new generation from polluting sources, constructing a new $2.4 billion coal-fired power plant at its Cliffside facility in western North Carolina. The Cliffside plant is expected to release to the air annually 6 million tons of carbon dioxide as well as large quantities of chemicals toxic to human health.

Meanwhile, the rate hike the company requested to help pay for the plant has met opposition at public hearings across the state this month, with one local newspaper describing the scene at this week's public hearing in Macon County, N.C. as "a seeming never-ending procession of citizens stating their considered opposition" to the increase, which is also opposed by a grassroots coalition of 25 environmental and public-health advocacy groups.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

What to make of the new climate poll

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) plan to introduce their climate bill tomorrow. Here are a few brief notes on what to watch for.

Just as a reminder, for the non-wonks, here's how the process works: 1) House passes bill, 2) Senate passes bill, 3) House and Senate bills reconciled via conference committee, 4) House and Senate both vote on resulting bill, and, finally, 5) president signs bill. Yes, it's a torturous, somewhat ridiculous process, with dozens of points at which it can go off the rails.

The thing to remember is that #2 -- which begins tomorrow -- is a very different process than #1. In the House, just one committee was involved: Energy & Commerce. That committee has a fairly diverse membership, so Sens. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) had to contend with a broad array of interests, but ultimately Waxman's hand was on the tiller through the whole journey. The committee produced a bill and it went to the floor for a vote.

It's not so simple in the Senate. (Is anything simple in the Senate?) There, up to five committees may hold hearings and mark up legislation, which will ultimately have to be incorporated into one comprehensive bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid. Potentially weighing in: Environment & Public Works, Energy & Natural Resources, Finance, Agriculture, and Foreign Relations.

It's possible Foreign Relations (which Kerry chairs) will bow out. Ag, now chaired by the climate-hostile Blanche Lincoln (D-Agribiz), will likely want to extract its chunk of flesh on carbon market regulation and agricultural offsets. Finance, chaired by the dread Max Baucus (D-Mont.), will want to have a hand in allowance allocation, though Boxer (or Reid) may yet convince him to back off. Energy, under Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), has already passed its bit, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, a comparatively weak energy title relative to what's in the House bill.

Boxer's committee, EPW, is one of the Senate's most progressive, and what Boxer and Kerry will introduce tomorrow is widely expected to mark the left edge of the debate -- everything that follows will push the bill in a weaker direction. They've said that they'll model their bill on the House-passed American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES), which is somewhat unfortunate since ACES already represents the result of numerous compromises in the House. But such is the U.S. Senate.

Boxer and Kerry have signaled that they'll make a few improvements on ACES. For one thing, they're expected to bump the 2020 target from 17% (below 2005 levels) to 20%. They're also expected to restore the EPA's New Source Review authority over CO2, which could be quite contentious.

A few things worth keeping an eye on:

There's likely more I'm forgetting, but that's a start.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Even though the Senate hasn't even begun debating a specific climate bill, naysayers at home and abroad are already declaring as dead on arrival the effort to pass climate and energy legislation in the United States this year.

And who can blame them? Like health-care reform -- and bad teenage slasher movies -- the whole climate and energy debate seems to be moving very slowly down a well-trodden path toward a bloody ending.

Slasher flicks? See, big political debates in Congress, like your typical horror movie, teach us that those who linger when being pursued, whether by Republican senators or knife-wielding madmen, are targeted and picked off one by one.

Health-care reform started to stumble mid-summer as it became apparent that the House and Senate leaderships weren't on the same page ... and that nobody was listening to President Obama. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) started acknowledging that a big breakthrough was needed, the White House did its best to pretend nothing was awry. The result: The few GOP moderates in the Senate (and a good number of centrist Democrats) were chased away from embracing any health plan.

The climate and energy debate may have gotten off to a stronger start, with a bill passing in the House in June after a tough fight. But then ... it got put on the backburner. The House struggle didn't thrill liberals or conservatives, and it left those in the middle uneasy. The result this month was Reid once again talking down the need to rush the climate issue, forcing President Obama to assure increasingly skeptical foreign partners that the U.S. Senate was capable of getting something done.

Maybe something will get done -- Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, has promised a draft of a climate bill by Sept. 30, for real this time. But Boxer's draft will be just the beginning. A Senate bill will be dragged through four more committees that can claim some form of jurisdiction. Each committee is its own collection of wandering interests that need to be corralled. Whether that happens may depend on how capable, or interested, each committee chair is, increasing the chances that the bill will get caught in the crossfire of a senatorial turf war.

Senator Barbara Boxer means business on climate ... right?Boxer has a long history of strong support for environmental issues, and she's at least nominally leading the charge with the release of her draft. She'll have the support of another reliably liberal senator, John Kerry (D-Mass.), who will co-write her draft as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But Boxer won't be able to route the bill around Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) -- the next most senior member of the EPW Committee and the chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, who apparently wants the naming rights.

Followers of health-care reform will recall that Baucus styled himself a bipartisan broker, convening meetings of the "Gang of Six" -- moderate Finance Committee members from both sides of the aisle. Baucus also believes his committee should take the lead on discussions of how to finance cap-and-trade. His ability to wrest that control out of Boxer's hands was based on the premise that pulling together a bipartisan health-care reform bill would boost his stock across the board. That didn't happen.

If the senatorial turf war can be avoided -- or settled relatively bloodlessly -- Baucus will still be expected to wrangle a group of diverse and moderate Democrats on his own committee. Baucus himself is known as a moderate. His home state has huge coal reserves, and he's hardly proven himself a reliable backer of environmental interests, much less a reliable Democrat. The common view is that having to cater to a group of moderate Democrats who aren't firmly on board will force Baucus to craft a weak climate and energy bill. But will even a watered-down bill find centrist champions?

The climate and energy bill isn't health-care reform. Almost all Democrats, and even some Republicans, want to talk about health care. On the climate and energy front, however, there is nothing resembling that kind of common ground. In fact, members of Baucus' own committee -- Democrats! -- are openly taking shots at the legislation.

Support for health-care reform isn't limited by geography -- the uninsured and underinsured are found all over the country. Climate and energy hinges on much more regional concerns over the potential loss of manufacturing jobs and economic ties to coal and oil -- emotional and touchy subjects for some of the members of Baucus' committee.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) recently questioned whether combining climate and energy would be "too big of a lift" and told reporters that she saw "the cap-and-trade being a real problem." Lincoln has praised a standalone energy bill drafted earlier this year as potentially "a great vehicle and bridge to get us where we need to be." As the chair of the Agriculture Committee (where there will likely be interest in lowering the profile of wind and boosting ethanol's part in the energy equation), Lincoln could do as much to weaken the bill as Baucus and his fellow Finance Committee moderates.

Three other moderate Democrats on Finance -- Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad (both of North Dakota) -- have openly questioned cap-and-trade as well. If you consider the reservations that prominent coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) might bring to the table, Baucus' panel begins to look like a tough crowd. If Michigan's Debbie Stabenow (D) wavers under pressure from industry and labor groups worried about cap-and-trade costing more manufacturing jobs, six of 13 Finance Committee Democrats are gone.

Of course, compromise will be essential to getting any bill through the Senate. But if Baucus steers a climate and energy bill too far to the center, it raises the specter of a revolt from the left -- just like talk of dropping the public option did in the health-care debate. What becomes of Baucus' health-care work remains to be seen, but his efforts so far have infuriated certain factions on the left end of the spectrum, which may affect their willingness to indulge a more moderate, Baucus-backed climate and energy bill.

In the meantime, supporters of a climate bill are wasting time, turning the advantage increasingly to the corporate and political interests opposed to capping carbon emissions. With so many moderate Democrats sitting on the important committees, opponents know they can kill a robust climate bill by picking off just a few senators from the majority party. The coalition of carbon interests that is spending tens of millions lobbying Congress may well turn the old slasher-flick ending on its head -- in other words, a few surviving heroes won't ultimately vanquish the knife-wielding killer; it will be the killer who prevails.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Cross-posted from Change.org.

Sens. Boxer and Kerry at a climate rally in June.Photo: David Pierpont, NWF via FlickrLast night at Pittsburgh's Andy Warhol Museum, Teresa Heinz read a message from her husband, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), that set the gala crowd to cheering:  He and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce a climate bill in the Senate next Wednesday.

The bill will be backed by a strong and broad coalition, according to Kerry's message, which Heinz delivered at a pre-G20 party sponsored by the U.S. Climate Action Network, and "will take a more comprehensive approach to dwindling oil reserves than any prior legislation."

The legislation will be a "thoughtful, innovative, far-reaching solution" in four areas: the nation's energy foundation; U.S. economic competitiveness; the health of the environment; and national security.

In between sets by the cream of New Orleans jazz musicians, an upbeat Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) encouraged the crowd to stay optimistic about the prospects for a good international climate treaty to come out of December's negotiations in Copenhagen.  "We need to get the Senate to act," said Doyle, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which produced the energy and climate bill tha the House passed in June.

"Let's give President Obama some arrows in his quiver to take to Copenhagen," Doyle said, suggesting that the Pittsburgh crowd remember to call Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the coming weeks and ask him to support the upcoming climate bill.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is chairman of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee and a key player on energy issues. In June, his committee voted to approve S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, an energy bill that may or may not be combined with a climate bill from Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment & Public Works Committee (and possibly an allowance-allocation bill from Sen. Max Baucus's Finance Committee) into a comprehensive bill to match the House's.

Sen. Bingaman was kind enough to answer a few of our questions. Transcript and comments beneath:

Here's the transcript, with my comments interspersed.

I'm Jeff Bingaman. I'm the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I'm glad to take questions from Grist.org about climate change issues.

Q: Do you support splitting the comprehensive House bill by passing an energy bill and postponing cap-and-trade for later?

A: Well I favor passing energy legislation, and of course we reported a significant energy bill out of our committee earlier this year. I hope we can bring that up and proceed with it. I also support dealing with greenhouse gas emissions more directly through a cap and trade system. That legislation has not yet come out of committee. It will be up to the majority leader whether we combine those two, or do them separately, and I'm not really in a position to make that decision. But, I would like to see us do both, and do both this year if possible. If we're not able to do both, I'd like to see us do all that we can do this year.

I asked this question because the idea has been floated a few times -- by a group of conservative Democrats (Lincoln of Ark., Nelson of Neb., Conrad and Dorgan of N.D.) and more recently by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Reid still says he wants to do a big bill, but he has pointedly refrained from closing off the option of splitting it. Sen. Bingaman doesn't exactly decry the option either; he supports doing "all that we can." Don't be surprised if the idea of passing an energy bill as a next-best substitute for a comprehensive bill gains steam over the next month or so; if that happens, the chances of a climate bill in Obama's first term all but evaporate.

Q: Are you in favor of a climate bill that includes a "price collar" with upper and lower carbon price limits?

A: Well, one of the key issues that we're dealing with in this debate about climate change, and cap and trade more particularly, is whether or not there ought to be provisions in the law--if we're able to enact a law--that would put an upper limit on the price of allowances and perhaps put a lower limit as well. I believe, myself, that it would make sense to have both. I know that that's being considered by the chairman of the Environment Committee at this time, and I hope that that's what the committee decides to do, and the chairman decides to do. I think that otherwise you have the risk of very substantial volatility in markets for allowances. And, of course, that adversely affects ratepayers and the economy more generally.

Obviously there's only so much you can say in a minute, but an extremely important issue is being elided here. In the past, Sen. Bingaman has supported a so-called "safety valve." (He included one in the climate bill he co-sponsored in 2007.) Under that policy, a hard ceiling would be set on allowance prices under a cap-and-trade program; in effect, when the price hit the ceiling the market would be flooded with unlimited credits. Environmentalists are dead set against the idea, because it compromises the environmental integrity of the program (the cap is a cap in name only) and retards the incentive to invest in low-carbon alternatives.

The "price collar" Boxer will include in her bill is different. ("It is not an off-ramp, and she does not support a safety valve," said a Boxer aide.) It adds two things to a conventional price ceiling. First it also sets a price floor, so allowance value never plunges to nothing (in the face of, say, a massive recession that dampens demand). But more importantly, if the price hits the ceiling, what's introduced to the market are not new allowances but allowances borrowed from future years. That way, the environmental integrity of the cap is preserved.

It's a crucial distinction, but since Bingaman isn't writing the climate bill this year, I wish I'd asked him about Murkowski's shenanigans instead.

Q: Can the climate bill gain the support of conservative Democrats without more funding for nuclear and coal power?

A: Frankly I don't believe that gaining support of conservative Democrats depends upon putting more money into nuclear and coal power. I do think that we've already enacted bills that try to encourage construction of initial nuclear power plants, and I support that. We have also put in law various provisions to try to deal with the emission problems of coal-fired power plants primarily by funding efforts, large demonstration projects for carbon capture and storage. Those are very important to the future of coal as an energy source, but I think what's really needed to get conservative Democrats supporting cap and trade legislation is to be able to put forward a proposal that people are confident will work and that people are confident will not impose an undue burden on rate payers or on our overall economy. And that's some persuading that still has to go on before we'll have the votes I believe to go ahead and enact this legislation.

I asked this question because Joe Lieberman, long seen as a centrist on climate policy, "believes that including greater funding for coal and nuclear energy could make the bill more attractive to Republicans and conservative Democrats" and his staff "has been meeting quietly with staffers for well over than a dozen senators on both sides of the aisle to draft provisions that would increase funding for coal and nuclear power plants." There is certainly plenty of persuading left to do, but in these situations persuading is often enhanced by prizes for constituents.

I thank Grist.org for inviting me to answer these questions. If you have other questions, please contact us on the committee's website: energy.senate.gov, or my personal website which is bingaman.senate.gov.

Our thanks to Sen. Bingaman for taking the time. Hopefully we'll hear more from him as the Senate climate drama unfolds.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

A group of 10 Democrats from industrial and coal-dependent states sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday informing him that they will not support a climate and energy bill that puts American businesses on an uneven playing field.

"Climate change is a reality and the world cannot afford inaction. However, we must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them," they wrote.

Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Robert Casey (Penn.), Arlen Specter (Penn.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Russell Feingold (Wis.), and Al Franken (Minn.) signed the letter. All 10 represent states that are coal-dependent and have a significant manufacturing base. Each is seen as a potential swing vote on the climate bill, and three (Bayh, Feingold, and Specter) are up for reelection in 2010 (though only Specter is seen as facing a tough political fight).

Five of the signers -- Bayh, Brown, Levin, Rockefeller, and Stabenow -- signed a letter last year saying they would have voted against the Lieberman-Warner climate bill had it been brought to a final vote at the time, and many of the 10 hail from states represented by some of the 44 House Democrats who voted against the Waxman-Markey bill in June.

Placing limits on domestic emissions will increase the costs of energy-intensive industries like cement, steel, paper, and aluminum, the senators write, and will push jobs in those industries to countries that do not have limits on emissions. They ask the administration to work with Congress to "ensure that climate change legislation does not produce an international race to the bottom" as more jobs are exported to countries with lower costs.

A climate bill should "include provisions to maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing," the senators write. "[I]t is essential that any clean energy legislation not only address the crisis of climate change, but include strong provisions to ensure the strength and viability of domestic manufacturing."

The authors call for transition assistance in the form of energy cost rebates for energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries, and policies and funding to support the research and development of new energy technologies. They also urge the Obama administration to negotiate a strong international agreement for emissions reductions in Copenhagen in December, including programs that "measure, monitor, verify, and hold countries accountable for emissions reductions."

The biggest flashpoint issue raised in the letter deals with trade. They authors encourage the president to support the inclusion of a border-adjustment policy in the climate bill, which would be a tariff on goods imported into the U.S. from countries that don't have binding emissions targets. Such a measure will be "critical to ensuring that climate change legislation will be trade neutral and environmentally effective," they write.

But this is likely to be an issue for the White House, which has already balked at some of the trade-protection elements included in the House bill. The Waxman-Markey proposal would give the president the power to attach special levies on goods from countries that are not abiding by an international agreement. Shortly after passage, Obama criticized the bill's border adjustment measures as being too "protectionist." "I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach," said the president.

The letter was sent just before senators return to their districts for the five-week August recess. They are leaving with two of the president's major policy initiatives -- climate and health care -- unresolved, to be taken up again when Congress resumes.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters on Thursday that she intends to have legislation ready to introduce after the Senate reconvenes on Sept. 7, with hearings and briefings to follow. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has asked the various committees with jurisdiction over climate and energy policy to complete their work on a bill by Sept. 28. Boxer said she remains confident that her panel can approve a bill by that deadline.

Another major factor will be whether other committees choose to write components of the bill. Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has said he would like his committee to author the portion dealing with allowance distribution, and his committee held its first hearing on the subject earlier this week. Other committees, like Agriculture, may also want to craft relevant portions of the bill. Boxer said that her committee's bill would be comprehensive and that she will leave it to Reid to incorporate the work of other committees.

"I welcome all the committees to write whatever parts of the bill they feel they have jurisdiction over," said Boxer. "I am happy to see all the committees getting involved. And then Harry Reid is going to take all the bills."

Thursday was the last day of hearings before the congressional break, but there will surely be updates on how senators are positioning themselves in the weeks to come.  Watch our series on swing-vote senators to find out more.

Below is the text of the letter sent by the 10 senators today:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

What to make of the new climate poll

I was going to blog on this umpteenth attack on strong progressive women, but Matt Yglesias beat me to the punch here, so to speak. I'll add my thoughts to Matt's comments at the end:

I used to think that US Senate Barbara Boxer was an experienced legislator with a solid progressive record on the issues. But then I read this Politico article in which various anonymous people criticize her "abrasive personal style" and "outspoken partisan liberal" demeanor. Big trouble! And then I got to thinking, I recall having read similar critiques of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and now as Secretary of State has been subjected to similar criticism. Nancy Pelosi, too.

You've really got to wonder what the deal is with the Democratic Party that every woman who comes forward into a position of power and influence is a shrill, castrating harridan. I mean, what are Democrats thinking? What poor judgment! Doesn't everyone know that politics is a business in which the only people who get ahead are soft-spoken sweethearts like Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer? Somehow male politicians have managed to figure this out. What's stopping the women?

Two excerpts from the Politico piece are particularly egregioius:

With Boxer as chairwoman and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe - who calls man-made global warming a "hoax" - as ranking Republican, the committee hearings tend to be politically charged. Staffers say it would be better for the committee to focus on more politically palatable arguments about job production, national security and the country's dependence on foreign oil.

In other words, because the ranking member is the top global warming denier in the Senate - a fossil-fuel-industry funded liar who spouts more disinformation on climate science than all his colleagues combined - Boxer should just be a good little girl and not talk about the gravest threat to the health and well-being of Americans.  So Politico is painting Boxer as a pushy bitch because she understands the science and is trying to prevent a catastrophe?

It boggles the mind that this paragraph appeared in a serious media outlet.

Does the Politico know that global warming is NOT a hoax, that thousands of scientists (and dozens of governments, including our own) are NOT engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool the public?  Because if the Politico knows that - and I hope they do - then they know that their own critique of Boxer for pushing back hard against Inhofe is utter crap.

And here is one of the two specific incidents that prove Boxer has an "abrasive personal style":

During another hearing this month, Boxer found herself in a testy exchange with the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, who accused her of "condescending" to him.

That's right, the Politico is somehow damning her for her perfectly reasonable behavior during an utterly contrived dust up (see "Black Chamber of Commerce CEO calls Barbara Boxer a racist - when she's trying to stop future Katrinas and he wants dozens more").

Inhofe has a far more "abrasive personal style" - at least if you are a scientist, since he again and again distorts your research and attacks your integrity.  But I guess because he is a man then, for the Politico, that just reflects his strong political views and not his "condescending" attitude toward people who have devoted their lives to telling the public the truth.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, write in "What Palin Got Wrong About Energy":

Whether it was the debate over the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law or any other landmark environmental law, one pattern has always been clear: Time and again, pessimists -- often affiliated with polluting industries -- predicted job losses and great costs to taxpayers. Each time, our environmental laws have cleaned the water we drink, the air we breathe and the communities we live in at far lower cost than initially expected.

Recall that Palin, who quit her governorship Sunday, is so ignorant of energy, so practiced at repeating falsehoods, that in September, during the campaign, the Washington Post itself gave her its highest (which is to say lowest) rating of "Four Pinocchios" for continuing "to peddle bogus [energy] statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers."

But that didn't stop editorial page editor Hiatt from running a piece by Palin filled with bogus information attacking climate action and clean energy action.  And it didn't stop Newt Gingrich from claiming in the clip above, "Her knowledge of the energy issue is very real."

Boxer and Kerry respond to her rhetorical bomb-throwing and lack of knowledge of the issues:

Palin argues that "the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive!" The truth is, clean energy legislation doesn't make energy scarcer or more expensive; it works to find alternative solutions to our costly dependence on foreign oil and provides powerful incentives to pursue cutting-edge clean energy technologies.

Palin asserts that job losses are "certain." Wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and American Clean Energy and Security legislation will create significant employment opportunities across the country in a broad array of sectors linked to the clean energy economy. Studies at the federal level and by states have demonstrated clean energy job creation. A report by the Center for American Progress calculated that $150 billion in clean energy investments would create more than 1.7 million domestic and community-based jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

Palin seems nostalgic for the campaign rally chant of "drill, baby, drill." But she ignores the fact that the United States has only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, while we are responsible for 25 percent of the world's oil consumption.

In fact, the governor's new refrain against global warming action reminds us of every naysayer who has spoken out against progress in cleaning up pollution....

Well, Palin isn't like every other pro-pollution naysayer -- surely she's the only one ever to voluntarily quit the governorship of a state halfway through her term.

Take the acid rain program established in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. The naysayers said it would cost consumers billions in higher electricity rates, but electricity rates declined an average of 19 percent from 1990 to 2006. Naysayers said the cost to business would be more than $50 billion a year, but health and other benefits outweighed the costs 40 to 1. Naysayers predicted it would cost the economy millions of jobs. In fact, the United States added 20 million jobs from 1993 to 2000, as the U.S. economy grew 64 percent.

The carefully crafted clean energy bill that we will present to the Senate, building on the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the House, will jump-start our economy, protect consumers, stop the ravages of unchecked global climate change and ensure that the United States -- not China or India -- will be the leading economic power in this century.

By creating powerful incentives for clean energy, it will create millions of jobs in America -- building wind turbines, installing solar panels on homes and producing a new fleet of electric and hybrid vehicles.

It will also help make America more secure. A May report by retired U.S. generals and admirals found, "Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inefficient use of oil also puts our troops at risk."

We do not charge that Palin wants to keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas annually to import oil from countries that, in many cases, are working to harm Americans and American interests around the world -- or that she wants another nation to lead the way to the innovative clean energy solutions that will be eagerly gobbled up by the rest of the world. But those would be the tragic results of the do-nothing policies she has espoused. Our nation's approach to energy must be balanced and must provide incentives for all the available clean energy sources to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Palin has proven she is unfit -- and unwilling -- to govern a single state.

That said, I applaud her taking position of leadership in the climate and clean energy debate -- one always wishes for the lamest of opponents.  So Gingrich's endorsement of her is especially timely.

Here is more from Think Progress on Gingrich's remarks:

At a National Press Club event on Wednesday, a questioner asked Newt Gingrich -- head of a corporate-funded group American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF) -- whether or not he would consider "running with" Sarah Palin in 2012. Gingrich demurred on 2012, but the former House Speaker went on to praise the soon-to-be-former Governor of Alaska as a future conservative leader on energy issues:

GINGRICH:  "Her knowledge of the energy issue is very real. And if you do start to see energy prices go back up I think there will be a pretty big interest in what she has to say about how we can use American energy -- keep the money here in America and the fact that bowing to a Saudi king is not a substitute for energy policy."

Following Palin's July 3rd resignation announcement, Bill Kristol speculated that she was resigning because she had "probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor," which begs the question: what does Palin seek to accomplish in her post-gubernatorial career? Between Gingrich's recent hints, the six mentions of energy in her resignation announcement, and her recent hackneyed op-ed on cap-and-trade in the Washington Post, Republicans may be moving to position Palin as their new leading voice on energy.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Clean energy opportunities

Thursday's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on climate change blew up into an argument over race between Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the chairman of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

NBCC's Harry Alford was invited to speak at the hearing titled, "Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness while Moving toward a Clean Energy Economy." He appeared to have been invited by the panel's Republican members, as he was the lone voice speaking against the climate bill that passed in the House last month. In his opening statement, he claimed to be representing the "black community."

Alford made his opposition to the bill very clear, citing a study his group recently released that predicts the bill would cause a $350 billion decline in GDP and the loss of 2.5 million jobs -- which, by the way, doesn't gibe with figures put together by the Congressional Budget Office or the Environmental Protection Agency. He also said the bill would be especially harsh on small and minority-owned businesses.

But when Boxer submitted for the record that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) this week approved a resolution stating that the group supports climate change policy, Alford became livid. He said:

So, Alford would like to be the voice of all African Americans on climate change policy, but bristles at the suggestion that other black groups are in fact in support of action on climate change.

Alford conceded that addressing climate change "should be a no-brainer," but he called for an energy plan that expands the use of oil, gas, and coal. Befuddling? Perhaps not, when you note that Alford's group has received $350,000 from ExxonMobil since 2003 and Alford has a history of offering up climate skeptic talking points.

Exxon's most recent disclosure form shows it donated $75,000 to the group in 2008 [PDF]. The group has received at least $40,000 from the charitable arm of Exxon each year for the past six years. As the Guardian recently reported, Exxon also continues to fund climate-change deniers despite the company's pledge last year to stop funding any group "whose position on climate change could divert attention" from the need for clean energy.

Wondering who belongs to the NBCC? Well, so is everyone else. The group refuses to disclose the names of its members to "protect their privacy." The group is a 501(c)3 non-profit but it does not disclose its funders on its website.

Below is the video of Alford's exchange with Boxer, via Wonk Room. See also Isaiah J. Poole's recap over at Campaign for America's Future.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”