Late Friday, the House passed the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, which President Obama said would "open the door to a clean energy economy." Congressional supporters say the historic measure would control U.S. global warming pollution, promote the use of green sources of energy and expand the nation's electric grid. However, critics contend that the legislation will increase energy costs across the nation and hurt the economy.
What are the best parts of the package? What changes should the Senate consider? What kind of impact is the bill likely to have on the American economy? Did House leaders give up too much to the agriculture and other business interests? Should the bill include tariffs on imports from countries that fail to adopt climate-change policies?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
18 responses: Kevin Knobloch, Margo Thorning, Donna Harman, Dirk Forrister, Bill Kovacs, Chuck Gray, David Holt, Frances Beinecke, Jim Kerr, Thomas Gibson, Hal Quinn, Rodger Schlickeisen, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, Bob Bendick, Jack Gerard, Mark Muro, Rob Stavins
Last week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved an expansive energy bill that has something for everyone to like -- or hate.
The bill would require at least 15 percent of the electricity sold in America to come from renewable sources. It would allow offshore drilling near Florida, and it includes subsidized loans and loan guarantees for a variety of technologies, including nuclear power. The package also would expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's power to pave the way for a national "smart grid" transmission system.
What are the most promising provisions in the legislation? What are the problem spots? Should the Senate consider the energy package on its own, or should the bill be bundled into a bigger climate change bill?
Which provisions should the House embrace as it votes on energy and climate change legislation?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: David Parker, Bill Johnson, Thomas Gibson, Linda Stuntz, Paul Sullivan, Larry Schweiger, Joseph T. Kelliher, Kevin Knobloch, Jack Gerard, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Denise Bode, Anna Aurilio
Should America turn to nuclear power to cut greenhouse gases?
Senate Republicans want to build 100 new commercial nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Over the last two years the industry has applied for licenses to build 30 new reactors, and Babcock & Wilcox Co. recently unveiled a new mini-nuke plant aimed at supplying power to small electricity users, such as municipal districts or individual industrial customers. But critics say nuclear power is too expensive and so risky that Wall Street won't finance the new plants. Opponents are critical of proposals for a federal loan guarantee program for low-carbon energy projects that could help finance the new nuclear plants.
Should we embrace nuclear power as a solution to climate change? What role should the federal government play in building new nuclear plants?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
13 responses: David Parker, Margaret Kriz, Margaret Kriz, Thomas Gibson, Joseph T. Kelliher, Thomas J. Pyle, Kevin Knobloch, David Holt, Chuck Gray, Paul Sullivan, Elizabeth Moler, Bill Johnson, Marvin Fertel
How can Washington regulate and reduce the transportation sector's oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions? What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities for the Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency? How should those roles be incorporated into the climate change legislation and surface transportation reauthorization that Congress is expected to tackle?
-- Margaret Kriz and Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
21 responses: Bill Graves, Bill Graves, Deron Lovaas, Ed Hamberger, Colin F. Peppard, John M. Krieger, Robert L. Crandall, James Corless, Paul Portney, Anthony E. Shorris, Steve Heminger, Kevin Knobloch, Steve Van Beek, Colin F. Peppard, Greg Cohen, Kateri Callahan, Paul Sullivan, Steve Van Beek, Greg Cohen, Steve Sandherr, Bob Dinneen
Will the nation benefit from a timeout for national forest development? Last week the Obama administration issued a one-year moratorium on road-building, logging and other development on more than 50 million acres of national forests, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Under the plan, only Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will have authority to approve new projects on lands covered by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule does not apply to Idaho, where a roadless plan has already been authorized.
Is this a good way to handle forest management while the U.S. Forest Service develops a long-term policy for dealing with the inventoried roadless areas within the national forest and grasslands regions? Or is it inappropriate and entirely political? Is this decision a sign of how the Obama administration will handle future disputes over oil and gas drilling, logging and other commercial development on federal lands?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
4 responses: Bill Kovacs, Bill Meadows, Rodger Schlickeisen, Donna Harman
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed historic legislation that would control U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, attempt to put the brakes on global warming and promote green energy technologies. But the committee vote is just the first step in getting climate change legislation to the president's desk. The measure is expected to get close scrutiny in the House Agriculture Committee, where Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., has been critical of the legislation. It also awaits review by Ways and Means Committee members, some of whom would prefer a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade program.
What are the most daunting hurdles standing between the legislation and House approval? How likely is the bill to clear them?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Mark Muro, David Parker, John Larsen, Larry Schweiger, Margaret Kriz, Denise Bode, Jack Gerard, Chuck Gray, Paul Sullivan, Margaret Kriz, Kateri Callahan, Tom Kuhn, Paul Sullivan, Cal Dooley
Editor's Note: This week, Texas oil and gas executive T. Boone Pickens is providing the question and joining in the discussion.
Recent news reports highlight the national security threat posed by our escalating dependence on foreign oil. A lot of our oil comes from nations that aren't friendly to us, and we live in a world where nations aren't afraid of using energy as a weapon, or where we don't have guaranteed supply. Russia cut off natural gas supplies to much of Europe last winter to force Ukraine to make concessions. And a recent AP piece leads: "A Kremlin policy paper says international relations will be shaped by battles over energy resources, which may trigger military conflicts on Russia's borders." China's entered supply deals with Brazil, Venezuela, Russia and Iran, and it's negotiating with Kuwait.
Is our continued -- and growing -- dependence on foreign oil an issue the Congress should address in its energy legislation? If so, how?
-- T. Boone Pickens
16 responses: Marvin Odum, T. Boone Pickens, Paul Sullivan, T. Boone Pickens, Bill Johnson, Margaret Kriz, Skip Horvath, Paul Sullivan, T. Boone Pickens, Margaret Kriz, Paul Sullivan, Carl Pope, Thomas J. Pyle, T. Boone Pickens, Paul Sullivan, Barry Russell
A cross-section of Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are backing legislation that would require U.S. electric companies to generate 15 percent of their power from renewable sources of energy and to demonstrate annual electricity savings of 5 percent by 2020. The provision includes an out for states that can't meet the mandate: Governors would have the option of reducing the renewable mandate to 12 percent and increasing the efficiency requirement to 8 percent.
House backers of the renewable electricity standard include committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.; Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and moderate Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., and John Boucher, D-Va.
Does the proposal go far enough to promote the use of renewable electricity? Would all states reasonably be expected to meet the 15 percent renewable mandate? How would it affect the electricity industry? Will it create winners and losers? Is there a better way to push for more renewable electricity?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: Donna Harman, Thomas J. Pyle, Larry Schweiger, Denise Bode, Jon A. Anda, David Kreutzer
Should Congress create a new independent agency to pass out cash for clean energy investments?
The Energy Department has dragged its heels in handing out billions of dollars in congressionally mandated loans and loan guarantees for renewable and clean technology projects. Now the House and Senate are considering legislation setting up a new Clean Energy Deployment Administration within the Energy Department to speed money to environmentally friendly energy technologies.
Is it a good idea, or will the new agency just mean more red tape? What are the potential pros and cons? Should nuclear power, clean coal technology and other traditional energy sources be included in the program?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: David Kreutzer, Paul Dickerson, Marvin Fertel, Carl Pope, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Jon A. Anda
The federal government is funneling billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. When evaluating those investments, should the main criterion be the number of jobs "created" by the project? What other standards should be used to evaluate those projects? Is the Obama Administration focusing too much of its attention on renewable energy projects, to the exclusion of traditional sources of energy?
-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Marvin Odum, David Parker, Margo Thorning, Thomas J. Pyle, Kevin Knobloch, Bill Meadows, Skip Horvath, Bill Kovacs, Paul Portney, Margaret Kriz, David Kreutzer, Marvin Fertel, Jack Gerard
