News about the climate bill legislation

[Mass]

While the Globe keeps on writing about the incoherent positions of our junior senator (will he go to the Tea Party Rallye, his commencement speech at BC, ..., and his latest absolutely ridiculous positions about the finance legislation

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023359.php

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/04/15/brown_opposes_current_financial_overhaul_bill/

Other papers continue publishing about Climate Change, including the fact that the bill will be unveiled Monday and that it continues to have opposition among Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/15/15greenwire-obamas-chief-of-staff-huddles-with-enviro-lead-62738.html

Sources on and off Capitol Hill said Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have settled on Monday, April 26, as their date for release of the climate and energy package they have been crafting for about six months. The proposal is expected to set a series of greenhouse gas emission limits for different sectors of the economy, with an overall goal of reducing U.S. emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. It also likely will expand domestic production of oil, gas and nuclear power.

The senators and their staff have had another packed week of meetings, including closed-door talks with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar; White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner; Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.); officials from Shell Oil Co., BP America and ConocoPhillips; Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens; and members of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Also today, at least nine Democratic senators with heavy industry in their states will release a letter detailing what they expect to see in the energy and climate proposal, including a border adjustment fee to limit imports from developing countries that do not have their own strict environmental requirements.

"It's just clearly laying out all the manufacturing and high-energy user issues," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a lead organizer on the letter with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). Others signing onto the letter include Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Robert Casey (D-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

and this interesting piece
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/15/15climatewire-coal-chiefs-go-on-offensive-as-pickens-pushe-62650.html

Last week, there were also news that the bill would be brought to the floor directly by Reid, avoiding to be lost in committees.

[beachmom]

1. Re: Brown -- ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Holy toledo. He asked the reporter what he should support (in the financial reform bill)??

Brown left open the possibility that he could support a compromise.

"I want to see when it's going to come up, how it's going to come up,'' he said. "I'm always open to trying to work something through so it is truly bipartisan.''

Brown, whose vote could be critical as Democrats seek to find a GOP member to avoid a filibuster, assiduously avoided talking about specifics.

When asked what areas he thought should be fixed, he replied: "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me. And then I'll get a team and go fix it.''

He must have been taught some technique where when he doesn't know the answer to throw a question back. But, um, not the way he said it.

Okay, I'll read the more substantive article, but damn, that was hilarious. As stupid as Palin. All the other stuff posted on Brown I didn't think was that big a deal. But the above is really embarrassing.

[karynnj]

5. Today Brown met with Geitner

My impression of Geitner was that he noticably talked down to most of the Finance committee, I really think it would have been fun to see a secret video of this. Geitner wanting to sell the bill would have to work very hard not to let his very likely condescension show - and what are Brown's "pointed criticisms", that implies he actually had specific things that bothered him. This has to have been one uncomfortable meeting.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/04/brown_to_meet_w.html

It also looks like McConnell does not have the 41 to block it as Susan Collins has not signed on to do so.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/92513-mcconnell-short-commitments-to-block-democrats-wall-street-bill

[karynnj]

2. Thanks for the nice summary

In the Finance committee's hearing on climate change, Kerry seemed open to the having some sort of tariff (though the word was not used) on products from countries not complying. (At that point, Obama was not in favor of that.) It really does seem both fair and a means of prodding other countries to comply.

Here is another article that deals with that Midwestern group. It really does show what Kerry/Graham/Lieberman are up against. Levin is a complete problem - just as he was in 2000 or 2001 when he fought Kerry and McCain on CAFE standards. Both of his provisions - giving manufacturers 10 years and setting federal standards only are very bad steps. I understand that he represents GE and Ford, but I hope they find enough Senators to take Levin's leverage away.
http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/midwestern-senators-set-to-del.php


Maybe the Globe writers like the self satisfaction of knowing they know more than the Senator - something that they can easily feel after covering the Junior Senator, but never the Senior one.

[Mass]

3. More about the letter.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/04/nine_democrats_outline_manufacturing_demands.html

[karynnj]

4. It is mindboggling how complicated all of this is

Many of their recommendations seem to be very well thought out and sensible, especially in this economy. It really is too bad that climate change was not addressed in the 1990s or the Bush years when the economy was better. (from the letter - "A significant phase-in for industrial sources of emissions would be necessary if the funding for rebates to energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries is inadequate. ") It makes sense that there is a tradeoff between delaying and giving the industries the funds to rapidly shift their technology.

What is promising is the size of this block, which increases hope that they can pass something that will start to put a price to carbon. - and the fact that while some environmentalists might prefer something that is stronger, it is not clear that anything stronger could pass and it is even less clear that there will be greater support anytime in the foreseeable future. (I also think the fact that Reid wants to move on this is a sign that he things it is possible. No way would he want to use precious time if there weren't.)

[karynnj]

6. Interesting Washington Post article

After

Democrats and their liberal supporters saw how much good could be accomplished by not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And Republicans and the business lobby were reminded of the concessions they could have won but didn't by their decision to abandon bipartisan compromise and instead try to kill the legislation altogether.
Now, thanks to the heroic efforts of two dogged senators -- Democrat John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham -- and the quiet support of the White House, there looks to be a 50-50 chance the Senate will pass a simpler and more moderate version of a bill this year that would begin to substantially reduce carbon emissions in the United States.

Many in the environmental community have come around to Kerry's view that this is the best shot they are going to have anytime soon at passing comprehensive energy and climate change legislation. And parts of the business community have come around to Graham's view that they can't afford another decade of uncertainty over regulatory issues, particularly with an activist Democrat in control of the regulatory agencies, just as they cannot afford to alienate an entire generation that has a keen interest in the environment and doesn't look kindly on their intransigence.

<skip paragraph saying only Republican co-sponsor now is Graham, but more might join>

They include: retiring senators such as George Voinovich of Ohio and Richard Lugar of Indiana, whose Midwestern states would fare even better under the Senate bill than the House-passed version; Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who will surely like all of the goodies for the nuclear power industry included in the bill; Susan Collins of Maine, whose idea for rebating to consumers money collected by the government through the sale of carbon-emission rights to electric utilities and oil refiners is a central feature of the Senate compromise; and Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the newbie senator who so far has lived up to his promise to be an "independent" Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505755.html?hpid=topnews

It is interesting that Lugar and Voinovich are both SFRC members who Kerry has reached out to. One missing from this list that should be a likely Republican is Snowe, who was Kerry's co-sponsor on his 2005 bill that never went anywhere. The last paragraph is an interesting summary that ends by saying that speaks of the compromise and bipartisanship and denies it is radical. If it fails they speak of the reason being Republican ideological zealots and others willing to risk the planet to deny the Democrats a victory. (He also says it is a better bill - on that I disagree, but the House bill was DOA - even more than Kerry/Boxer was.)

[karynnj]

7. Another article that is cautiously optimistic for its passage from Atlantic Monthly

Despite the odds, Senate Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive energy bill by year's end. Their best vehicle is likely to debut on April 26, when Sens. John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham unveil their long-awaited legislation. The senators crafted the bill with an eye toward the politics of climate change -- and to what appears to be a somewhat successful campaign by climate change deniers to influence public debate about the wisdom of a massive bill during a recession.

Skepticism about the trade-offs between new energy policies of any sort and jobs, jobs, jobs is high, even if the correlation between the two concepts isn't well established. Conventional wisdom holds that no climate change/energy bill can be passed in an election year, but there are solid reasons for Democrats to be hopeful. This effort is truly bipartisan, with bona fide conservative Graham playing a lead role. The structural factors that are pushing Congress to act remain the same: industry wants certainty, not ambiguity, and the EPA will begin to regulate in the absence of congressional action. And many landmark environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Superfund were passed days ahead of Election Day.

Although the three senators have been relatively leak proof about the bill's details, the outline and some details of its provisions have been revealed. The bill would set as a target a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020. The bill takes a sectoral approach to industry: utilities, which generate the most greenhouse gases, would have to start limiting their emissions in 2012. Industrial facilities, which are regionally concentrated and therefore politically contested, would have several more years to adjust before caps were imposed. These would kick in by 2016 -- well after the recession has ended, and presumably after job growth has pulsed. Forcing them to cap emissions now would probably lead to apocalyptic predictions of job losses and would entrench opposition from senators and representatives from the states where these legacy factories are keeping people employed. Nota bene: this is one reason why the White House proactively rolled out its nuclear power plant and domestic oil drilling initiatives before the Senate took up the bill.

A moving part, as of today, is pollution reductions from transportation fuels -- the second largest source of global warming pollution. Many oil companies are lobbying for a tax to be applied after the fuel is refined, which they believe would be a more efficient system compared to including transportation fuels as part of the cap and trade system in the House passed bill.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/the-new-senate-energy-bill-a-preview/39021/

[karynnj]

8. Here is an interesting blog post speculating on what is happening behind the scenes

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/63313

A few interesting perspectives - referring to the letter from the Midwest Senators that Mass posted;

"If you want to understand why bills like Cantwell-Collins, which ignore regional equity and don’t focus squarely on dealing with energy intensive industries in the Midwest, simply don’t attract even a fraction of the 60 senators needed, read the letter here."

"Also important to their message and their effort to secure 60 votes is having some business leaders on board by the time they release a draft proposal. Kerry is giving industry officials a phone briefing this evening, a source said. A group of industry and business officials gathered earlier this week to assess the situation and many expressed continued reservations, sources said."

and:

"There seems little chance of getting anywhere near the number of Senate votes needed for a bill that doesn’t preempt the EPA (same for the House). As I wrote of the House climate bill, I agree with NRDC that it would be valuable for EPA to keep this authority under climate legislation, but is not one of the top five things I would change about the climate bill if I could. Certainly, if the EPA does keep the authority, it won’t try to use that authority to shut existing coal plants down faster than the bill itself would."