-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com

In the face of such uncertainty, should Congress give the U.S. oil industry a boost? Should the Senate climate change legislation include provisions to encourage domestic oil development -- as recommended by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.? If so, what kind of language would you like to see included? Would oil drilling provisions help the Senate reach the 60 votes necessary to pass a global warming bill?

Should the Senate stop trying to pass an all-encompassing bill and instead concentrate on enacting the bipartisan energy package that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved earlier this year? What would be the ramifications -- both for the political landscape and the nation's energy mix -- of splitting the cap-and-trade bill from the energy measure? Can efforts by Kerry, Lieberman and Graham save climate change legislation?

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

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?

Moderate Democrats Push Back

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

Will Senate Bill Build Momentum?

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?

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?

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?

Salazar Ending Royalty-In-Kind Program

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."

• 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?

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?

Climate Change Vs. Health Care (updated at 9:50 a.m. on Aug. 18)

With health care issues dominating the national debate, is climate change getting lost in the shuffle? Will that kill chances of passing climate legislation this fall? After members of Congress have been attacked in town hall meetings on health care, will they avoid taking bold positions on other controversial issues, particularly climate change?

And what impact, if any, will the American Petroleum Institute's "energy citizen" rallies and advertising blitzes by other business groups and by the environmental community have on the discussion?