Energy & Environment: Senate Panel Passes Bill Without Republicans
• "In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans," the New York Times reports. "The measure passed by an 11-to-1 vote with the support of all the Democratic committee members except Senator Max Baucus of Montana."
• "While Sen. Barbara Boxer was celebrating" the vote, "other Democrats and Republicans were already looking for a Plan B," Politico reports. "Moderates are looking to Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to come up with that Plan B, which may include more incentives for nuclear power, renewable fuels and maybe even domestic drilling to draw support of moderate Democrats and some Republicans."
• "A proposal to use federal stimulus dollars to finance a Chinese-backed wind project in Texas is under attack from some members of Congress, the latest sign of tension in Washington over foreign-owned firms' efforts to secure U.S. money for alternative-energy projects," the Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports. "In a letter Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) urged the department not to use any federal stimulus money to support a $1.5 billion wind project in Texas, unless the project relies on U.S.-built turbines and other components."
• "A curious debate has broken out among American environmental groups, as the Senate balkily starts to focus on the threat of climate change," the Washington Post reports. "Some groups have muted their alarms about wildfires, shrinking glaciers and rising seas. Not because they've stopped caring about them -- but because they're trying to win over people who might care more about a climate bill's non-environmental side benefits, such as 'green' jobs and reduced oil imports."
Editor's Note: This week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a contributor to this blog, is providing the question.
Last week, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing to examine the increased supply estimates for domestic natural gas from shale formations, and the contribution that those projected supplies could make to our energy security and climate protection objectives. One of the witnesses put forward a proposal to replace the least-efficient coal-fired electricity generators with newly built natural gas plants. He testified that replacing about 8-10 of these old coal plants per year in this manner would account for about 10 percent of the cumulative 2020 domestic emissions reduction contemplated by pending climate bills, and that these reductions would come at a cost equivalent to about $13 per ton of CO2 reduced.
What would be the pluses and minuses of such an initiative? If we greatly expand our use of natural gas in the utility sector, how would that affect the manufacturing sector, which also has a growing need for natural gas? How likely is it that utility fuel will switch to natural gas in any case, independent of the passage of climate legislation or specific initiatives?
-- Jeff Bingaman
12 responses: David Parker, Paul Sullivan, Paul N. Cicio, Rich Wells, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Cal Dooley, Don Santa, Hal Quinn, Lee DeHihns, William O'Keefe, Frank O'Brien-Bernini, Skip Horvath
Updated at 10:02 a.m. on Oct. 28.
If there is a devil in the detailed Kerry-Boxer, we're going to get a lot closer to finding it. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has released her chairman's mark, and the Environmental Protection Agency completed its analysis on the bill. And this week, Boxer's committee begins a series of hearings on the bill, with top administration officials set to testify Tuesday.
What's your initial take on the chairman's mark and EPA's analysis? What changes would you like to see and what changes do you expect? How do you think this EPA analysis compares to the agency's report on Waxman-Markey? Do you think the hearings will help trigger substantive discussion on key provisions now lacking in the bill? Or do other committees need to mark it up before certain provisions can be addressed?
The big news of day one of the EPW hearings was Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., along with other moderate Democrats like Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, expressing concerns over the greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2020 and EPA's regulatory authority.
Do you agree with Baucus that 20 percent below 2005 levels is too strict a reduction to meet by 2020? Do you think this target will need to be changed in order to get to 60 votes? What else do you think may need to be changed to get the votes?
Will the economics of climate change continue to dominate the debate Wednesday and Thursday?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: David Parker, Amy Harder, Carl Pope, Randall Swisher, Thomas Gibson, Margo Thorning, David Holt, William O'Keefe, Jack Gerard, Bill Snape, Frances Beinecke, William O'Keefe
Recent endorsements by key senators, such as John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., (in their joint op-ed) and Tom Carper, D-Del., could be early signs nuclear energy is gaining traction as an indispensable part of the recently introduced Senate climate change legislation. Still, lawmakers and experts alike cite obstacles, including high construction costs and lengthy license processes, that the industry will need to overcome.
What obstacles do you think are holding up nuclear development? Should the climate bill include provisions to help revitalize the industry, such as streamlining the process of getting new plants built? And if so, how? Would nuclear provisions help Senate leaders win 60 votes? Alternatively, why do you think nuclear energy should not be an integral part of Kerry-Boxer?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
17 responses: Bill Johnson, David Holt, Paul N. Cicio, Mark Cooper, Randall Swisher, David Parker, William O'Keefe, Paul Sullivan, David Kreutzer, Carl Pope, Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., Marvin Fertel, Frank O'Brien-Bernini, Arjun Makhijani, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Bill Snape, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., acknowledge their legislation introduced on Sept. 30 has a lot of placeholders, but they nonetheless tout it as a good starting point that will gather steam with input from other committees.
What do you see as its strong points? Weak points? What programs, incentives or industries' interests are missing that should be included or were in the House-passed bill? What are the missing components that should be front and center when other committees mark it up? If there's going to be one issue that serves as this bill's bottleneck, what will it be?
(Updated at 1:03 p.m. on Oct. 14) How do you think this weekend's New York Times op-ed by Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., changes the landscape for the bill? Environmentalists and industry representatives alike are calling this a game-changer; do you agree? Do you think this means more controversial issues, like offshore drilling and nuclear energy, are more likely to be included in the bill?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
16 responses: David Parker, William O'Keefe, Arjun Makhijani, Kevin Knobloch, Jon A. Anda, Larry Schweiger, David Parker, Frances Beinecke, Chuck Gray, Mark Muro, Charles Drevna, Jack Gerard, Frank O'Brien-Bernini, Thomas Gibson, Bill Snape, William O'Keefe
Editor's Note: This week Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is providing the question and joining in the discussion as the Senate begins consideration of the Kerry-Boxer climate change legislation.
Discussions over how to mitigate climate change's worst effects -- which policies we can and should implement -- have set off one of the most important and most complex debates to take place in Congress.
Only one idea, a carbon cap-and-trading scheme, has received significant attention on Capitol Hill. And yet, serious doubt has been cast on such a system's ability to keep energy affordable and our economy strong while still achieving substantive emission reductions. Other policy options -- a tax on carbon, massive investment in advancing clean energy technology, even geo-engineering -- have largely been ignored.
I recognize that time is short and that action is needed soon. But at what point did we decide cap-and-trade was the most effective way to address climate change? Setting politics aside, are there other approaches capable of achieving the same results at lower cost and with greater regulatory efficiency? Would the debate over climate policy benefit from an attempt to re-evaluate our options?
-- Lisa Murkowski
22 responses: Marvin Odum, Paul N. Cicio, Kevin Knobloch, Steven Stoft, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mark Muro, Kateri Callahan, Rob Stavins, Thomas J. Pyle, Donna Harman, William O'Keefe, Jennifer Morgan, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Chuck Gray, Dirk Forrister, Kevin Knobloch, Larry Schweiger, Paul Sullivan, Jon A. Anda, Rob Stavins, Robert C. Sisson, William O'Keefe
Updated at 1:55 p.m. on Sept. 30.
The U.N. climate change summit last week in New York served as a precursor for the upcoming December talks. After his speech, President Obama was criticized for being long on rhetoric and short on details, while leaders from China and Japan won praise for offering specific goals on emission reductions. Consensus is also growing around the idea that countries may adopt their own domestic climate change policies in lieu of an international agreement.
How successful were the gathered leaders -- particularly our own -- in laying down a foundation for Copenhagen? What role should the U.S. play in the upcoming talks? Will Congress need to pass an energy bill by then? Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and White House science czar John Holdren are optimistic. But if Congress remains in the thrall of health care reform, passing a bill may not happen within the next three months. Will it be detrimental to the administration if it goes to the U.N. talks without a bill in hand? What responsibility do you think the U.S. has to work in coordination with other countries, especially China and India?
Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., are unveiling a bill in the Senate today that would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, a steeper cut than the 17 percent specified in the bill the House passed this year. Do you think the Senate bill will provide the momentum some say the U.S. needs for Copenhagen, whether it passes or not? Does it do enough to address the international aspects of climate change? Click here for the draft version of the bill that was circulating Tuesday.
In other energy news, climate change is slated to be high on the agenda for President Obama's trip to China in November. What type of cooperation do you think these two countries need in order to combat global climate change effectively? How should the U.S. proceed in developing renewable energies in order to quell concerns that China will far surpass the U.S. in this industry?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Eileen Claussen, Gene Karpinski, William O'Keefe, Bill Meadows, Andrew Wheeler, Carl Pope, Steven Stoft, Dirk Forrister, Frances Beinecke, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Paul Sullivan, Daniel C. Esty, Kevin Knobloch, William O'Keefe
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last week rolled out their joint standards to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Federal officials predict that the regulations will increase fuel economy by 5 percent every year from model years 2012 through 2016 and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil. They say that the new requirements will reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and help save the average car buyer $3,000 in fuel costs.
However, Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe of Oklahoma argued that the new standards "will not enhance America's energy security, and, in fact, will make new cars more expensive and less safe."
Are the regulations too ambitious? Should they be stricter? Do you think they're emblematic of how the administration will curb greenhouse gases -- through regulation rather than legislation? What changes would you recommend?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
10 responses: Richard Revesz, Kateri Callahan, Mark Cooper, Frances Beinecke, Jeffrey Breneman, Kevin Knobloch, Thomas Gibson, Steven Stoft, Arjun Makhijani, William O'Keefe
Updated at 1:34 p.m. on Sept. 16.
Last week, House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., introduced legislation that would change the ground rules for oil and gas development on federal lands. The bill would create a new Interior Department agency to oversee oil and gas development and would scrap the existing federal royalty system. It would also push oil companies to speed exploration on federal lands, rather than holding leases for prolonged periods of time.
Rahall's bill is the latest offering in congressional efforts to reform federal minerals policy law. Proponents say the changes are needed in response to charges last year that Mineral Management Service employees were involved in a sex and drug scandal involving oil and gas company representatives. Also last year, Congress lifted a federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.
In light of those events, should Congress overhaul federal mineral policy law? What impact would Rahall's bill have on resource development in the U.S.? What parts of the bills do you support? What changes do you recommend?
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that he is terminating what he referred to as the "controversial" royalty-in-kind program, under which the government accepts oil and natural gas from producers instead of cash for use of federal land. In his testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, Salazar said his department will phase out the program and begin "an orderly transition over time to a more transparent and accountable royalty collection program."
How do you think this changes the landscape for Chairman Rahall's legislation? Do you agree with this termination or not? Why do you think Salazar decided to terminate it and what type of program do you propose he replace it with? In his testimony this morning, the secretary didn't offer more details of its replacement other than that it will be "more transparent."
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Jack Gerard, Barry Russell, Frances Beinecke, Thomas J. Pyle, Jack Gerard, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., David Holt, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., William O'Keefe
Scientists say the best way to keep coal-powered electricity alive while cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is to store the power plants' carbon dioxide emissions underground. But sequestering the pollution raises sticky legal questions:
• Who should be liable if the sequestration project harms local groundwater or if the carbon dioxide escapes from the ground?
• Should Congress or the states allow companies to store carbon dioxide gases deep underground without first getting permission from citizens who own the land above those storage caverns?
• Which federal agency should regulate the underground storage sites and the transportation of pollution from the power plants to the caverns?
• Should Congress advocate legislation and money for capturing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel plants and storing them underground? Is it worth the effort?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
5 responses: Skip Horvath, Paul Sullivan, Bill Johnson, Steven Stoft, William O'Keefe
Should the Environmental Protection Agency be required to publicly defend its finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare?
In April, the EPA released a proposal concluding that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants cause health problems. Now the agency is poised to release the final version of that ruling. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that before the decision is finalized, EPA should be required to defend its scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge. Chamber officials and other critics claim that the Obama administration is suppressing internal agency studies that disagree with the proposed endangerment finding.
Should the climate change data be reviewed in a public administrative law hearing? Would a public hearing make any difference? Or is the hearing request just an excuse to delay the agency's climate change decision?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Kevin Knobloch, Richard Revesz, Larry Schweiger, Paul Sullivan, Jon A. Anda, William O'Keefe, Carl Pope, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Bill Kovacs
