In a laudable attempt to draw more elite media attention to the Waxman-Markey bill -- which, like all things "environmental," has not exactly been a preoccupation of the political cable/blog/op-ed axis -- Washington Post business writer Steven Pearlstein makes a hash of a few important facts.

Pearlstein says the Waxman-Markey bill will create "create dozens of new government agencies with broad powers to set standards, dole out rebates and tax subsidies, and pick winning and losing technologies." By my math, "dozens" means 24 or more, but I can't even come up with a handful. EPA will monitor CO2 and issue permits. FERC will regulate the carbon trading market. The Department of Energy will establish efficiency standards, do new research, and expand smart grid and electrical vehicle support programs. These aren't new agencies.

There is a new Carbon Storage Research Corporation [S114(b)] run by EPRI. There's an Offsets Integrity Advisory Board [S731] to consult on quality and standards for offsets. There might at some point be a clean energy and/or infrastructure investment bank to help finance new green projects. But most of the regulating is being done by existing departments and agencies.

Pearlstein's hyperbole is par for the course these days. Lots of people have taken to exaggerating the complexity and opacity of the bill based primarily on its page length (one wonders how many have read it, or even a summary). Waxman-Markey does a great many things (thus the many pages), but most of them are described fairly clearly and constitute reasonable evolution of existing regulatory authority. This isn't to say there aren't complexities -- important questions remain to be answered about coal plant performance standards and EPA authority, for example -- but the bill is not the impenetrable Rube Goldberg mechanism so many in the press caricature.

Pearlstein is mixed up about the choices in climate policy as well. Apparently Paul Portney, former president of Resources for the Future, told him there are three options in reducing emissions: a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, and other regulations, standards, and investments (so-called "complementary policies"). Not sure if Portney said exactly that, but if he did, he's mixed up too. That's like saying your sandwich choices are chunky peanut butter, creamy peanut butter, or jelly.

Then Portney/Pearlstein adds to the confusion by saying Waxman-Markey uses a mix of all three policies, but that's not right either. The carbon title of the bill is a cap-and-trade system, full stop. It's a declining cap and tradable permits. Features that might have made it slightly more tax-like, e.g. 100 percent auction of permits, were rejected. There's no tax in the mix.

The cap-and-trade system is, in fact, packaged in a large bill with a whole range of complementary policies. But why should expect (or want) otherwise? Climate policy cannot live by carbon pricing alone. [See, from the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center: “Cap and Trade is Not Enough: Improving US Climate Policy” (PDF), or Holmes Hummel, “The Essential Role of Complementary Policies in Climate Policy Design” (PPT).]

The climate policy stool has three legs: a price on carbon, complementary regulations and standards, and public investment. It would be unwise to pick one at the expense of the others just to make a bill tidier or fewer pages in length. If anything, the third leg -- investment -- needs to be bulked up in the bill.

All that said, Pearlstein is absolutely to be commended for recognizing that:

Something very important has been happening this week -- more important, if you can believe it, than what Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding or why Kris Allen scored his upset victory on "American Idol."

So damn true. Let's hope Pearlstein can get a few more of his colleagues interested. One of the things that would have made the bill better is a lot more sunlight, and that only comes with relentless (and accurate) press exposure. After all, he's dead on about this:

Given the bill's scope and complexity, just getting it out of committee is a monumental achievement on the part of its principal authors, Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. To do so, they had to make numerous compromises and concessions to powerful special interests and regional voting blocs that would be most affected by the transition to a system in which companies and consumers are forced to pay, indirectly, for the environmental damage they cause. Waxman and Markey are wily and experienced politicians, so it is a fair assumption that the bill their committee passed last night in a 33-25 vote is pretty close to what the U.S. political system is now willing to accept.

Producing a better bill than Waxman-Markey would require a few changes in the political landscape, one of which is a political media that takes the bill and the issues it addresses seriously.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Are carbon taxes a viable option?

President Obama has stacked his administration with experts and advocates for strong action on global warming and clean energy. Now he has added one more -- in an unusually important position as the Washington Post reports:

FERC is especially important because of the role it plays in transmission, a key bottleneck for achieving the clean energy transition (see "smart grids"). As the Post explains, FERC as a long been a backwater on this issue:

How unusual: a FERC head -- heck, any serious opinion maker -- who actually reads up on the issue of the century. So what does he plan to do?

And Wellinghoff also understands that plug-in hybrids, are a core climate solution. And electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence.

The value to electric utilities from a plug-in could be $1,000 to $2,000 a year -- which in the medium term could be key to very rapid market introduction of plug-ins.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

‘Heretic’ battles straw man

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

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?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday approved a $700 million floating liquefied-natural-gas terminal to be built in the middle of Long Island Sound. The energy companies Shell and TransCanada are partners in the project, which is expected to supply 1.25 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to New York and Connecticut -- enough to generate electricity for 4 million homes. Connecticut state officials and some environmentalists have been vocal opponents of the project, saying it would industrialize a popular recreation area and could become an attractive terrorist target. Connecticut's attorney general called the terminal an "environmental atrocity" and vowed to fight the feds' approval in court. The LNG terminal still needs approval from two New York state agencies to proceed.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

California yesterday submitted new evidence to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of a widespread plan by electricity generators, traders, and even municipal power companies to produce the state's 2000-2001 energy crisis in order to turn a profit. State officials said the evidence, which was the result of a 103-day investigation, was just the "tip of the iceberg" in a web of abuse. The information -- the state's most comprehensive effort to date to account for how its energy market went so drastically awry -- was submitted to FERC as part of California's effort to win $9 billion in refunds for price gouging by the companies involved in the scandal. Gov. Gray Davis (D) said the evidence revealed an "epidemic" of industry cheating, including withheld power generation, illegally shared information among competitors, purposely high bidding during energy emergencies, manipulation of the emissions market, the sale of phantom services, and the creation of the appearance of congestion in the energy system.

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

A Penny Saved Is…

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

The proposed reorganization of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which is currently in federal bankruptcy court, could spell bad news for thousands of acres of pristine landscape in the Sierra Nevada. Right now, PG&E is supervised by the California Public Utilities Commission, whose regulatory structure requires strict environmental protection and encourages public access to the company's 140,000 acres of watershed and timberlands. But all that could change if PG&E, which suffered huge financial losses during the state's energy crisis last spring, divides into 26 smaller corporations that would operate under the less-eco-friendly authority of federal energy regulators.

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

A Penny Saved Is…

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)