As campaign season begins to come into full swing, the timeline for passing a climate bill has been constricted to two weeks and the options on the table are far less desirable than the more economically efficient and comprehensive carbon caps originally proposed.

In the time that remains, Senators scrambling to piece together a package should keep striving for three things that will improve the effectiveness and economic efficiency of this bill:

First, as different energy provisions are tossed around, Senate leaders should include market-based measures wherever possible. This idea is not new to the environmental debate; Republican policy thinkers came up with it years ago. And though many now seem to be abandoning cap-and-trade, they were right the first time. Letting businesses decide how best, and most cheaply to comply with environmental goals saves money and jobs while ridding us of pollutants, which is why economists nearly universally agree that market-based mechanisms are the way to go.

Second, while a cap on carbon that applied only to utilities would be better than no cap at all, the broader the scope of the cap, the more money will be saved. Leaving out cars and the manufacturing industry means less greenhouse gas reductions for each dollar we spend. It would be cheaper to have a less stringent cap apply to the whole economy than to have a stricter limit on one sector. It will cost the utilities more per ton of carbon reduced if they have to go it alone than if everyone were painted with the same brush.

It’s similar to the way a sector-by-sector approach, favored by the leadership for a time earlier in the spring, would have worked: Utilities will not have the advantage of looking to other sectors for cheaper ways to reduce emissions. Instead they will be limited to the options within their own sector, even if that means paying more to reduce the same number of tons of emissions.

Though these constrained markets are more efficient than a traditional command-and-control type of rule, it would be even better to include other industries or at least other pollutants under this cap. The bottom line is that doing so saves taxpayers from having additional and unnecessary costs passed on to them.

Lastly, legislation should not displace regulation unless the legislation is more effective at controlling the pollutant in question. So for example, utilities might hope for a relaxing of the EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rules (CAIR) on sulfur dioxide since they’d now be subject to the carbon cap.

This would be a raw deal for Americans. Sulfur dioxide is highly dangerous pollutant associated with health problems like asthma and heart disease. EPA’s regulations have proven efficient in beginning to reduce levels of this harmful pollutant in the air, and the new CAIR rules will go much further, reducing pollution by millions of tons. The rules will generate between $100 billion and $300 billion dollars in benefits each year, at a relatively modest annual cost of $2.8 billion making it a good deal for the American people.

Senators should refuse this kind of inter-pollutant bartering. But if utilities want to bring sulfur under its own cap via legislation that would be fine—it could be made stringent enough to have the same effects, possibly even better, than what EPA is getting now and cost industry less to comply.

When Barack Obama took office in January of 2009, hope for an economically efficient, comprehensive carbon cap sprung eternal. Even in the midst of a recession, there seemed to be a good chance we would rein in our greenhouse gas emissions before mid-term elections, maybe even before the UN’s climate talks in Copenhagen.

Now with the sand slipping quickly through the hour glass, we are reduced to fighting bitterly over every vote for a bill much less effective than those originally proposed. But as worrisome as this picture looks, even inadequate action will be better than none—and will still be cost-benefit justified.

Although I think a price on carbon needs to be set as soon as possible, it is my view that there may not be enough time in the week or two left for Senators to work though the new issues raised by a power sector only proposal. Although I think a power sector only proposal might be workable given time, a poorly crafted proposal would risk the ability later to extend a cap economy-wide, which is my preferred approach. Importantly, I think the debate over a power sector only proposal and the difficult issues it raises will help all of us see again the wisdom of an economy-wide cap-and-trade program, such that we can all return to where we started.

A key issue that needs to be considered in a short amount of time by the Senate is the difficulty of replicating the consumer protection provisions of Waxman-Markey and K-G-L in a power sector only proposal. While both Waxman-Markey and K-G-L gave utilities most of the allowances for free for ratepayer (residential, commercial and industrial) mitigation, both bills also provided substantial additional allowances specifically to low-income consumers, who are disproportionately impacted by higher energy costs. Even if one adjusts the low-income consumer allocation under an economy-wide cap to reflect the lesser impacts of a utility-only cap, to replicate the ratepayer and low-income consumer protections in the prior bills probably requires more than 100% of allowances going to rate payers and low-income consumers combined. Hence, a utility only cap is probably going to have very different impact on ratepayers/ low-income consumers than Waxman-Markey or K-G—L. The difficult consumer mitigation issue also means there will be precious few, if any, allowances/revenue available to fund R&D, promote renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear or CCS. New mechanisms and considerations to address these issues must be considered by the Senate. Again though, the remaining legislative days on the calendar this Summer don't allow for a full debate on these critical issues .

Efforts to adjust the allowance allocation formulas, such as a consumer rebate (part for free, part auctioned and returned per capita) probably aid in mitigating low-income consumer impacts (per capita refunds are very progressive), but they clearly would change the modeled impacts on commercial, industrial and state and local government entities, who would be exposed to a much higher price signal, and associated costs, than modeled in Waxman-Markey or K-G-L. Such rebates can also inequitably redistribute ratepayer income to different states than those that paid for the allowances, and this issue and fair solutions to it needs to be debated. Ultimately, firm price caps may be needed to provide additional mitigation, although determining how this would work and what the price levels should be to generate real mitigation, and not merely to avoid upside risk, could take some time.

The Senate would do well to take into account the limited success of the Europe's carbon reduction programs. A utility-only cap could leave the ultimate U.S. carbon program looking more like the European program ( a cap on some sources, and a large hodgepodge of other carbon reduction mandates for the other sectors). Whatever may be the case with the European program, it is not governed by an overarching (i.e., economy-wide) market-based system geared to generating least cost solutions. Since a power sector only cap will be the nation's first experience with a system to mandate carbon emissions , in order to extend it to an economy-wide system, the country's initial experience with it needs to be positive. The economics of a power sector only cap suggests that avoiding a negative economic experience from some sectors or groups of ratepayers will take time to develop and some careful crafting.

Difficulties with developing a power sector only cap in the time allowed does not mean that carbon reduction efforts need be abandoned altogether. While I am not in favor of a national RES, it is possible something like a “big tent” low carbon energy standard could become both workable and useful. That standard needs to include as qualifying all the technologies and efforts that modeling says will be undertaken to meet a cap, not just renewables, to avoid the economic inefficiencies inherent in one-size fits all mandates, and to specifically replicate the very actions companies would take in response to a price on carbon.

There are also several options for putting a price on carbon outside a cap. A low carbon standard can be structured such that the size of the compliance obligation is tied both to power sales and to carbon emissions. Alternatively, a fee, or “wires charge on carbon emissions and power sales could be set and paid to EPA to develop international forestry credits. Since these offsets are viewed as potentially providing high supplies of low cost tons, substantial carbon reductions (and national progress toward carbon reduction goals) can be had for relatively nominal monies as compared with a cap.

This approach has the benefit of pricing carbon, generating quantifiable reductions, and setting up a U.S. international offset framework, which modeling shows will be key to managing allowances prices under an eventual economy-wide cap.

While I think the Senate has a number of options to consider, my primary concern is that in the rush to pass legislation, the Senate would only have bad options from which to chose that could politically imperil a transition to an economy-wide cap-and-trade system.

The question before us is whether or not our representatives to government can coalesce (or “agree enough”) to enact legislation that will help us on our way to minimizing the impact on both our daily lives and the economy of the inevitable decline of the climate. It would seem that when couched in those terms the answer must be, “Yes, they can”.

At this point in the cycle of analyzing the environmental impacts of our current business-as-usual carbon policy, it should go without debate that something must be done. The rub comes in “agreeing enough” to be able to identify a starting point so that we can begin taking steps towards fixing the problem. It’s obvious that by not agreeing to any proposal placing a price on carbon (so that we at least have a floor from which to measure the cost and value of alternatives), we are delaying the implementation of any possible solution to the carbon problem. “So, what’s wrong with that?” some might ask. What’s wrong is that according the MIT Energy Initiative there is a definite inertia problem with climate change: If we choose to do nothing, we could see a finite positive probability that the global temperature could rise by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s enough to not just disrupt our way of life, but to cause global chaos (to put it mildly). If we adopt some reasonable carbon target (the MIT Energy Initiative uses 650ppmv for illustrative purposes) and move towards it, we can eliminate, or at least lower the odds of the type of catastrophic outcomes from which Hollywood blockbusters are made.

Studies conducted by Navigant Consulting validate the notion that one of the major impediments to moving forward is the lack of clarity around any sort of pricing scheme for carbon that Congress would be willing to provide– so, no one is exactly sure where the starting point is.

If we can “agree enough” to identify a general starting point, utilities, regulators and other stakeholders can begin to plan and act accordingly. Not doing so is a sign that we do not have the will to push aside short-run differences. And, unfortunately, provides us with yet more fodder for special effects-driven blockbuster movies – or, even scarier, an outcome in which the special effects are real.

With the summer heat taking over Washington, it is time for cooler heads to prevail on climate change, and for the Senate to be a leader in that debate.

Inflammatory rhetoric aside, humans are having a bad impact on our climate. This impact is already being felt across the globe and will be for generations to come. We have no choice but to deal with both the causes and effects of climate change, and the sooner we do, the less costly it will be.

Just about everyone can agree that it is BP’s responsibility to clean the damage in the Gulf of Mexico. It is also the responsibility of the polluters, who have been pumping greenhouse gases into the air for decades without any recourse, to bear the costs of fixing the impending climate disaster.

Limiting carbon pollution and having polluters pay for the carbon that they discharge, benefits all Americans. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly found that capping carbon pollution leads to savings for the American taxpayers.

Furthermore, the money raised from charging polluters for their mess can rebuild the American economy and protect its natural resources like clean air and clean water from ongoing climate impacts

Investing in protecting our communities and natural resources from climate impacts is a huge win for our economy. Projects like removing unwanted old logging roads and dams can protect and create more jobs than many other economic sectors. Just $1 million invested in forest restoration can create and protect 20 jobs, with a potential economic impact of $2 million. Where else can we double our money with such great ecological benefits? Furthermore, protecting our wildlands protects the $730 billion active outdoor recreation economy.

Every so often our nation faces a crisis that calls for partisan politics to be laid aside so our elected officials can come together in the best interest of all Americans. Climate change is one of those crises, and the Senate can and must come together to address it.

With the Senate looking to move forward on an energy bill, we believe it’s imperative that lawmakers stay focused on consumers and the potential impacts of legislation on struggling families and businesses.

As a regulated utility CEO, I have an obligation to the customers we serve to meet energy and environmental standards as economically as possible. In the states we serve, the median annual household income is at least 10 percent below the national median, and about 45 percent of the households have an income less than $35,000. For them, pending legislation is not an esoteric policy debate.

Most electric utilities support reducing greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050 and call for an economywide approach. As an industry, we have been actively working on this issue for more than three years and have considered a number of proposals. Most recently, industry has been engaged in conversations about a sector-only approach. Unfortunately, that now seems unlikely.

Integral to any proposal is the need for certainty – a clear, reasonable path for controlling emissions, allocating allowances and other provisions.

Providing certainty now rather than later would be the most cost-effective way to control all of these emissions and transform our power system while reliably meeting the growing demand for electricity. Putting a price on carbon rather than a quota on certain energy resources would enable our nation to take advantage of a balanced, diversified low-carbon portfolio, which should include energy efficiency, nuclear, natural gas, clean coal and the smart grid as well as renewable energy.

Without question, renewable energy will play an increasingly important role in meeting our energy needs. But the best federal policy lever is to go to the heart of the matter: provide upfront clarity on carbon and the other clean air regulations associated with our energy transformation. That would be a breakthrough for consumers and our nation.

It’s a mere three weeks before the Senate heads home for its August recess. With a packed legislative schedule, there is little time for the Senate to act on a climate bill, or even an energy bill.

But the Senate must act. If the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico has taught us anything, it is that U.S. energy policy needs a fundamental change. That change will not be without its challenges. But failing to act invites serious consequences – for our energy supplies, our economy, our national security and the environment.

Would an economy-wide price on carbon accomplish great economic and environmental benefits for America? Absolutely! But time is short, and political will is lacking. Yet we should not allow the Senate to miss this critical opportunity.

Putting a price on carbon is, without a doubt, the single best way to convey how important it is for individuals and businesses to factor the consequences of their actions into their energy decisions. But even absent the political wherewithal to take that game-changing step, we cannot simply throw up our hands and say “all or nothing.”

A wiser course of action is to focus on what we can accomplish now – namely, to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and then, eventually, to move towards more comprehensive climate legislation. The technology exists, and the policies are there – many of them already captured in legislation pending in the Senate.

So the Alliance to Save Energy urges the Senate to pull together those existing provisions and bring to the floor a clean energy bill that would increase U.S. energy independence; create American clean energy jobs; and reduce our carbon pollution.

Just last year, Sens. Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined together to successfully move a clean energy bill – S.1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA) – through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. ACELA includes provisions to strengthen our national building energy codes and appliance standards.

The Senate should build on ACELA, by adding additional energy efficiency provisions such as standards for HVAC equipment, as contained in S. 3059, the National Energy Efficiency Enhancement Act, and a strong Energy Efficiency Resource Standard.

The Senate also should include additional provisions that would directly benefit consumers and businesses. Building again on ACELA, with its residential and commercial energy efficiency retrofit programs, the Senate should also adopt Home Star and Building Star, which are job creators in their own right.

Collectively, these policies would establish energy efficiency as the foundation for meeting near-term energy- and carbon-reduction goals. And while they would not do as much to curb greenhouse gases as would a price on carbon, they nevertheless would move us closer to realization of our important energy and climate goals.

Sen. Robert F. Kennedy spoke of the power of courage, the power of standing up for an ideal. While Kennedy was not speaking about energy, his words resonate with those of us who advocate on behalf of policies we believe can and will solve America’s energy challenges.

In his famous speech, Kennedy spoke of how the smallest ripples can build great currents that break down the walls of resistance. It is time we recognize that this is our moment to start our own ripple: acting now on energy legislation will build the strong current we need to break down that wall. It is a chance we may not see again for the foreseeable future.

It's time for our leaders to decide which side they're on. They can side with oil companies like BP that want to continue our reliance on fossil fuels – or they can side with the American public and vote for a clean energy future.

It's critical to have comprehensive legislation that reduces our fossil fuel dependence and make the transition to clean energy. Anything less would be inadequate as we face the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. And after we experienced the warmest June on record, we must also begin to address the impacts of climate change.

That's why it's essential that we make polluters pay for harmful carbon emissions. That's simply the best way to give the private sector incentives to invest in clean energy. Studies show that under the currently proposed “energy-only” bill, carbon pollution would actually increase. We’d miss the opportunity to build a clean energy economy and the millions of new jobs that come with it.

Congress must respond to the Gulf oil disaster and hold BP accountable. It must reduce our dependence on oil and help us be more energy efficient. And it must reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and threatens our future.

Finally, we cannot take a step backward by blocking EPA rules to protect human health. This is not the time to pass legislation that would increase pollution or worsen our quality of life. Rather, it is time to seize the moment with policies that will reduce emissions, create new jobs and help end our dependence on oil and dirty fossil fuels. It’s time to make America energy independent and usher in a 21st- century clean energy future.

My simpler paradigm was a short statement of a broader issue. Read the Center for American Progress piece below (with no offense meant to the author) and then read David Brooks NYT op-ed today on technocracy. Climate policy needs a "third way" that folks like Cantwell, Collins, and Bingaman seem to embrace. I hope Harry Reid can too.

Bottom line, Reid’s energy and climate package must include a strong mechanism for pricing carbon. Without that, it will be exceedingly difficult for the U.S. to spur clean energy innovation to the scale necessary to avert destabilizing climate change and to catch up with China and the other nations zooming ahead in cornering the global clean energy market.

An economy-wide price on carbon like the one that passed the House is needed. But if that is a political non-starter—which would be a historic blunder, according to a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences—a scaled-down “utility first” approach must not give away the farm. It must not relax existing clean air regulations or the EPA’s power to enforce them.

Power plants produce a full 40 percent of all emissions in the U.S., and reductions in that sector would have an immediate impact on bringing down the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution. So utilities are a good place to start pricing carbon—and there is precedent with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative—but this approach would nevertheless leave us well short of the emissions reductions and urgent solutions science demands.

Our Senators should understand this and do better.

Business leaders, from General Electric to Microsoft to Nike and even many power companies like National Grid, are advocating for policy that puts a price on carbon. They need that critical market signal to make the right investments and remain competitive in an ever-more global marketplace—markets that don’t wait for the U.S. election cycle. While the Senate dithers, China is attracting more clean-tech financing than the U.S. and Europe combined, and Spain has overtaken the U.S. as the biggest solar generator in the world.

The question is not whether the U.S. will transition to a clean energy economy. It’s whether we will lead that transition, putting Americans back to work building a thriving clean energy economy at home, or whether we will fall further behind. And we need look no further than the automobile industry to remember the devastating consequences of clinging to outdated business models.

Utilities have options for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring their long-term financial stability, as laid out in Ceres newly released report, The 21st Century Electric Utility: Positioning for a Low-Carbon Future. Increasing energy efficiency throughout the production and distribution process, employing smart grid technology, and integrating renewable energy sources into their business models will allow power companies to better serve their customers and shareholders while reducing emissions. So Reid’s package must also contain provisions promoting these solutions.

Time is short, but it’s not too late for the Senate to meet the urgent challenge of climate change head on. An energy only approach--with no price on carbon--just kicks the can of a global emergency down the road.

WIth the National Academy of Sciences warning last week that “near-term emissions choices could lock in climate changes for centuries to millennia," the Senate must find the courage to act decisively now.

The U.S. private sector emits too much co2 for global climate stability. The role of the public sector is to set limits (quantity, price, or a hybrid of the two) that allow the private sector to do it's business with less co2. Climate policy is de-facto energy policy - with coincident benefits from reduced oil imports and job creation from labor-intensive energy efficiency investments. This simple paradigm is why business and environmental leaders say emphatically "just price carbon". What other energy policy is needed? Not much really - the electric grid, nuclear waste and liability, levels of tax subsidies consistent with climate policy, R&D funding for early stage low-carbon energy, and perhaps some standards for things like appliances, buildings, and vehicles. But simpler is better. Simpler will be more passable. Simpler can even be more credible - bringing more investment and jobs. CLEAR, or something along the lines of the new Bingaman Draft with an opt-in provision for industrials, are better alternatives than the kitchen sink measures under consideration.

With senators scrambling to find the right mix of policies that will get votes, one idea under consideration is a greenhouse gas reduction bill for the electric power sector – so called “utility only ”– rather than one that covers most sectors of the U.S. economy. If the Senate chooses this route, there are important issues that must be considered in order to come anywhere close to cutting total emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, President Obama’s commitment to the international community, and ensuring a pathway to a near-zero economy by 2050. We also need to make sure such a program doesn’t undermine its environmental goals. Here are key points to keep in mind:

• A utility-only emissions reduction cap alone will not be enough to reduce U.S. emissions to target levels. Emissions from electric power account for only about a third of total U.S. GHG emissions. We still need to address the other two-thirds. That’s why existing authorities’ ability to regulate GHGs, especially on uncapped sectors, must remain intact. We will also need to use new and existing complementary policies (such as appliance and vehicle standards) to achieve national emissions reductions goals.
• The design of an electric power-only emissions trading program must be ambitious. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, the sector is capable of achieving reductions of 20-27 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 using existing and cutting edge technologies. Emissions reductions in the electric power sector are also cheap relative to other sectors. Moreover, it is imperative that any cap establishes a long-term pathway for reductions out to 2050. For these and other reasons, a strong cap is desirable, and achievable.
• Cost-containment measures should be considered carefully. A price ceiling set at too low a level would miss opportunities to achieve reductions from under the electric power cap, where affordable abatement (GHG reduction) options are widely available. This would also inhibit the deployment of new clean energy technologies. Allowing large amounts of offsets for compliance would yield a similar outcome. It’s important to remember that the overall demand for offsets will be much lower under an electric power-only program as compared to an economy-wide approach. In addition, given that large uncapped sectors such as transportation and industry need to be subject to regulation to ensure adequate economy-wide reductions, they should not be allowed to generate offsets under an electric power-only cap. To do so would undermine one of the key principles of quality offsets – that they represent additional emission reductions.

A strong bill could jumpstart American investment and jobs in clean energy. If we don’t move forward with the economy-wide cap that is needed and instead implement a utility-only cap, we should tread cautiously. A bill that strips the EPA of its authority or that sets a weak cap on emissions could do more harm than good.

These comments were co-written by Weiss and fellow energy experts Tina Ramos and Susan Lyon.

The Senate plans to debate Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) four-part comprehensive clean energy legislation during the week of July 26. No one existing bill has all of the needed ingredients for a comprehensive energy and climate bill, but it is possible to craft a proposal that would actually achieve Reid’s four goals by combining the most effective provisions from a number of existing bills.

Oil spill response

• The Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2010, S.3516: reorganizes Marine Management Service
• Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act, S.3305: creates unlimited liability for big oil spill.
• Big Oil Bailout Prevention Trust Fund Act, S. 3306

Clean energy and job creation

Reduce oil use

CAP’s recent “Senate Oil Savings Greatest Hits” evaluates the major Senate oil savings. These are the most important:

• Oil Independence for a Stronger America Act, S. 3601: cuts oil use by 8 million barrels per day by 2030, and increases fuel economy standards by 6 percent annually.
• The Electric Vehicle Deployment Act, S. 3442 and the NAT GAS Act, S. 1408: invests in electric cars, and natural gas trucks and buses

Clean energy infrastructure

• American Clean Energy Leadership Act, S. 1462; Section 121: rebuilds America’s electricity transmission system

Clean energy finance

• The Clean Energy Deployment Administration, ACELA, Section 105; provides loans to help commercialize new technologies.

Invest in energy efficiency

• HOMESTAR and BUILDING STAR programs, S. 3177 and S. 3079; creates jobs by incenting energy efficiency retrofits in residential and commercial buildings
• State energy efficiency retrofit program, ACELA, Section 262
• Energy Efficiency in Housing Act, S. 1379; makes federal housing more energy efficient
• Energy efficiency building codes, ACELA, Section 241; will cut new building energy use in half
• Restoring America’s Manufacturing Leadership through Energy Efficiency Act, S.661

Renewable energy

• American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454: sets renewable electricity standard of 15 percent by 2020, plus 5 percent decrease in demand. Increase to 25% renewables in 2025.

Clean manufacturing and job training

• Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act, S. 1617; helps manufacturing facilities become more energy efficient.
• Energy worker training program funding, ACES, Section 422

Clean energy tax provisions

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: extend the effective tax incentives in ARRA, such as grant in lieu of tax credit program
• Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act, S. 3324
• Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, S. 3405: could save $45 billion

Limits on pollution from the electric utility industry

The reduction of global warming pollution from coal fired power plants – which produce one third of U.S. carbon dioxide pollution - would make a difference. Putting a price on carbon pollution from utilities would also generate revenue to pay for clean energy programs and incentives. There are three bills that include some of these provisions: the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733; the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, S. 2877; and, the American Power Act.

Any utility-only proposal should include the following provisions:

• Utilities should commit to do their share by reducing their emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 42 percent by 2030 (APA).
• The program should begin in 2013 (APA).
• Only power plants that emit 25,000 tons or more of greenhouse gases annually should be required to have allowances (APA, CEJAPA).
• The federal government should auction off the allowances, beginning with a minimum price of $14 per ton and a maximum price of $25 per ton in 2013. This floor price should level the price between dirty coal fired power and cleaner natural gas generated electricity.
• The floor and ceiling prices should rise by 3 percent per year plus inflation (APA).
• Only covered emitters should be allowed to buy allowances, and unused allowances should be sold in the government auction. No allowance trading between emitters would be allowed (CLEAR).
• Two-thirds of the allowances should be given to the local distribution companies, which must return their value to their ratepayers (APA).
• The proceeds from auctioning the remaining allowances should be invested in additional income protection for low-income households; clean energy technology research, development and deployment; carbon capture and storage technology research and pilot projects; deficit reduction; and, protection of tropical forests (APA).

Conclusion

Senators should contribute their most effective clean energy ideas to the comprehensive energy bill that Sen. Reid plans to offer on July 26. If they work together, Americans can anticipate a feast of more jobs, less oil use, a more secure nation, and less pollution.

There is virtually no possibility of Senator Reid being able to craft a piece of legislation that would get 60 votes before August recess. The current Senate atmosphere is too partisan. The Majority Leader has shown that he is not motivated by seeking common ground, and many of his fellow democrats are wedded to a flawed cap-and-trade system.

The only difference between a utility only and economy wide emissions trading bill is the extent of economic damage done and the amount of wealth that traders and system gamers take from taxpayers. There is an abundance of evidence from the EU experience and the analytical literature that cap and trade is a flawed approach to reducing carbon in the atmosphere. And yet, democrats wedded to environmental zealotry continue to push it. This latest push is less about passing legislation before leaving town and more about placating the environmental wing of the democrat party.

One piece of compelling evidence is the plan to marry cap and trade with oil spill legislation. Until the cause of the Deepwater Horizon is better understood, oil spill legislation is a knee jerk reaction to appease off oil advocates. The Senate would better serve the American public’s interest by dealing with an impending tax increase which will deal another blow to a weak and struggling economy. Anyone who wants a glimpse of what could be in store for the economy should read Amity Shlaes The Forgotten Man – particularly, the section dealing with the effect of the 1937 tax increase. Time spent on wrong-headed legislation is time not spent in putting our fiscal house in order and providing the confidence needed for business to invest and consumers to spend.

Before serious and effective climate legislation can have a hope of passing, the Senate needs to be purged of the toxic mistrust that now exists and instill a genuine willingness to seek common ground re-established. Accomplishing those objectives will not be easy nor come quickly; but they are essential for the good of our nation and health of the economy.

A good place to start would be acknowledgements that cap-and-trade is poor policy and that no one in the Senate is wise enough to set a cap that is well balanced or to design a complex system of trading that won’t be exploited and have serious unintended consequences. A next step would be an acknowledgement that bending the emissions curve will take decades and technologies that don’t exist or are not yet commercial.

Since no appropriations bills have been passed but should, the Senate should use the appropriations process to make clear that EPA is not authorized to issue regulations on CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions. That act would help set the foundation for true bi-partisan work on climate change and would effectively dictate that no legislation should or will be passed before the fall elections.

60 votes needs evidence of a commitment to do it right and that suggests a series of small but effective steps. Comprehensive legislation on something as complex as climate policy is simply not realistic. I believe that the Senate should be guided by Vince Lombardi’s philosophy for winning football games: Do a few things, but do them well.

It may make more sense to try for an energy only bill given the political clout of the BP oil spill and other things that are happening on the energy fronts. There seems to be a growing political will to do something on energy issues, but which energy provisions will pass the muster is still up to question. A combined energy and climate bill is not likely to find enough traction due to the continuing disagreements and dysfunctionality on these issues. Trying to push this combination through could end up causing much less getting done than if there were separate debates and discussions. Jobs and the continuing weak economy still remain at the forefront of worries of people in most of the country. It has been a hot summer, but politically there are still many doubters on climate change its causes. Energy, however, seems to be gaining more traction in the public. However, I have serious doubts there is time to move things forward enough in the dysfuntional political atmosphere on The Hill. I wish our more forward thinking leaders well, but they are definitely pushing a heavy rock up a steep hill.

This response was written by Dan Lashof, director of NRDC's climate center.

Time for the Senate to act is indeed melting away, but all the relevant policy pieces are available and the Majority Leader is committed to assembling them into a (semi-)comprehensive bill over the next few days. The Senate Freshman Democratic Class laid out the key components in a letter on Friday. They include:

· “making polluters pay through a price on greenhouse gas emissions”

This can be based largely on the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act proposal, but will likely be scaled back to focus first on carbon pollution from power plants (hence “semi-comprehensive”). This requires some adjustments but those are manageable and good progress is being made on them. Some amendments to existing Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulatory authority are appropriate for sources covered by new legislative limits, but rollbacks for sources not subject to such limits, or for long-overdue public health safeguards from other pollutants are simply not acceptable.

· “investments in energy efficiency throughout the American economy”

The Senate Energy Committee bill (ACELA), the Lugar Practical Energy Plan (S.3464), and the Schumer Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (S. 548) each have important measures to offer here.

· “investments in clean energy technologies” including “a federal renewable electricity standard (RES) that results in a meaningful increase in renewable energy production”

The RES in ACELA needs to be strengthened to meet this test.

· “a clear target for reducing our oil dependence from countries outside North America”

The Merkley-Carper-Udall-Bennet bill (S.3601), introduced last week, sets a clear target for reducing oil demand (8 million barrels per day by 2030). Additional import reductions can be achieved through enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide captured from power plants (CO2-EOR) as the Energy Information Administration recognized in its analysis of the American Power Act released on Friday. But some North American resources are too dirty or dangerous to exploit—Canadian Tar Sands and Arctic Wildlife Refuges are good examples.

So the only real question is can such a package get 60 votes. If all the Senators who say they want Congress to set the policy for reducing greenhouse gases and have previously expressed support for limiting carbon pollution vote for it, then the answer is yes.