Virginia Approves Major New Coal Plant and Electricity Rate Hikes
The No 2 utility owner in America yesterday won the right to build a $1.8bn power plant in the heart of the Appalachian mountains. The move almost certainly will increase Virginia’s use of the mining practice known as mountaintop removal, in which peaks are sheared off to reach the coal inside.After an emotional two-day hearing that drew hundreds of witnesses, the Virginia state air pollution control board cleared Dominion Power to break ground on a 585-megawatt plant deep in the heart of coal country.
The vote was unanimous, with even board members who favor a carbon tax calling for more coal to burn.
Dominion Virginia Power will raise its electricity rates starting Tuesday by 18 percent, the largest one-time rate increase in three decades, to pay for soaring fuel costs. The three-member Virginia State Corporation Commission, the state’s utility regulator, approved the increase in a ruling issued Friday.
It’s Getting Hot in Here has commentary:
Today was the final day of the Air Board Hearing concerning the Wise County coal plant. The room was full of hope after yesterday’s comment period, and the board acknowledged the powerful citizen outcry over the plant’s health and environmental impacts. But ultimately, they approved the plant. While they significantly strengthened the emissions regulations, they did nothing to address mountain top removal mining or CO2 emissions.They went as far as they could, without doing more harm than good. Fearing litigation from Dominion, they made no strong statement about regulating CO2—without the regulatory framework from the EPA, the Board felt it wasn’t able to take a strong stand. “My hope is,” stated one Air Board member, “that strong, forceful legislation will come at a federal level and that Governor Kaine will take state-specific actions to address CO2.”
It was because of the “loud public clamor” that the Air Board decided to take up this permit and make it as strong as it is now. Dominion will have to make a considerable effort to meet these demands, including cleaning up their mercury emissions. Dominion walked in the door expecting that their permit would get rubber-stamped approved with a 72 lb mercury emissions regulation. The Air Board demanded that they reduce that to 4.45 lbs per year. That’s a 120% reduction, made possible only by the strong grassroots outcry about this plant.
It was clear to me and other members of our coalition that this was a courageous move by the Air Board. They are going to take hits from both sides of the debate, neither of which got what they wanted. As Kathy Selvage said, “They gave no consideration for the mountains that will be the fuel for this plant.” MTR wasn’t mentioned by the Air Board at all. Also, the “out clause,” which allows Dominion to get a new permit if they cannot achieve the mercury standards, was also left in.
“There you go. We didn’t do it.,” said one Air Board member in his final comments. They didn’t take a strong stand on MTR, on CO2, or on the plant. But they did create a strong regulatory hurdle for Dominion, and they made an attempt to protect our air based on the Clean Air Act. The vote was unanimous.
Appeals Court Rejects Petition to Order EPA to Make Global Warming Endangerment Finding
The U.S. District Court of Appeals has unanimously rejected a petition requesting it require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue its long-delayed finding as to whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. The petition had been filed by officials of 18 states exactly a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ordered the EPA to issue an endangerment finding.
Since that time, Congressional and journalistic investigations have discovered that Administrator Stephen Johnson, with assistant deputy administrator Jason K. Burnett, worked to obey the Supreme Court decision and completed its work for submission to the White House on December 5, 2007. But the White House refused to accept the work, literally keeping Burnett’s email unopened and ordering him to retract the message. He refused to do so, and has since resigned.
The White House overrode the EPA decision to make the endangerment finding, to grant California a waiver to issue its own greenhouse tailpipe emissions regulations, and to recommend federal standards. Instead, Johnson denied California’s waiver and is expected to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sometime soon with draft emissions standards (he has missed his self-imposed deadline of the end of spring).
Sir Nicholas Stern Warns Congress To Act; Dingell: "How Many People Will Lose Homes And Farms To Flooding?"
In yesterday’s House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on the costs of climate change inaction, economist Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the famous Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned the United States Congress that the challenge of reining in greenhouse emissions is critical and doable. Stern advised that there is “a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100.”
Energy Committee chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) noted that global warming will bring more floods like those that have devastated Iowa and other Midwestern states:I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury. Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.
In contrast, Republican lawmakers emphasized energy costs and the problem of China and India, arguing against federal mandates to limit emissions.
Stern also met with a group of senators, and later spoke at the Center for Global Development, saying:I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States. At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.
From E&E News:
An appearance by a prominent British economist yesterday once again split the House Energy and Commerce Committee along partisan lines, as lawmakers battled over the potential economic and political consequences of taking action to address global climate change.The Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee heard from Lord Nicholas Stern—a former World Bank chief economist whose recent projections about the costs of addressing climate change has sparked a wave of headlines and debate.
Stern yesterday also met with senators involved with the cap-and-trade legislation from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “I remain impressed by the degree of understanding of many people of responsibility in the United States,” Stern said at a speech at the Center for Global Development yesterday. “At the same time, I was impressed by the extraordinary scientific denial of some of them.”
At the House hearing, Stern repeated his call for world economies to spend 1 percent to 2 percent of their gross domestic product to stop greenhouse gases from rising to dangerous levels. Though Stern openly admitted that addressing climate change could have a significant economic impact, he repeatedly emphasized that taking no action would eventually lead to much higher costs.
In particular, Stern said that scientific analysis showed that without some kind of action there was a 50-50 chance that worldwide temperatures would increase by an average of 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the pre-industrial level era by 2100 – a change that would lead to massive changes in human living conditions and major economic costs.
“It radically redraws where species, including humans, are able to live,” Stern said of the potential temperature change. “Changes of this kind can mean very big movements in population.”
Stern projected that the associated costs of inaction could lead to somewhere between 5 percent and 20 percent loss in GDP but said the possibility of such a significant temperature change could be cut substantially by stabilizing C02 emissions.
That message was seemingly embraced yesterday by prominent Democrats, who saw such warnings as a signal that the federal government and private sector must act fairly quickly on efforts to stem the effects of climate change.
“I would prefer to legislate with more certainty from the scientists about the dangers we face in the future, but we do not have that luxury,” said Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.). “Scientists are already observing effects now from climate change.”
Dingell also argued that no projection can estimate the price costs of addressing – or not addressing – climate change, but argued that Congress can still take action to substantially reduce the potential associated risks.
“Scientists cannot tell us precisely what will happen at different greenhouse gas levels, such as how many more people will lose homes and farms to flooding,” Dingell said. “Instead, we need to understand that the best they can do is tell us what the risks are – the probabilities that certain physical changes will occur and the costs we will incur to address those changes.”
Several top Republicans, meanwhile, acknowledged that there could be potential economic impacts stemming from global warming but also argued that poorly designed efforts to deal with the issue could have even more severe economic consequences.
“Energy costs have already reached alarming levels – we’re all paying the costs,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. “We can pursue options that won’t make matters worse.”
Upton again urged lawmakers to act on climate change legislation that would avoid federal mandates but instead invest in a slew of incentives for clean coal, nuclear and renewable energy.
Additionally, Republicans questioned some of the conclusions of the Stern analysis, saying that the analysis underestimated the potential cost of mitigation strategies.
China and India question
One issue that surfaced several times is the oft-debated question of whether U.S. action on climate change would prompt other world powers – particularly China and India – toward taking action.
Stern admitted that there continues to be some hostility in those nations toward the idea they should take actions that could potentially slow economic development, though he added that they are somewhat more open to international cooperation in part because they are starting to recognize the potential consequences to their own nations.
“That resentment is still there – it’s a political reality that we all have to recognize,” Stern said. But he added, “They realize that you can’t take action for a world of 9 billion just through the action of the 1 billion in the rich world.
“They recognize very quickly just how vulnerable they are,” he said.
Lauren Morello contributed to this story.
House to Debate Several Energy Proposals
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that the lower chamber of Congress will consider several pieces of legislation targeted at oil companies, energy markets, and transportation.
- Reducing Transit Fares (H.R. 6052) – Gives grants to mass transit authorities to lower fares for commuters pinched at the pump and expand transit services.
- Cracking Down on Price Gouging – Gives enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate fuel prices, similar to legislation passed last year.
- Closing the Enron-like “London Loophole” for Petroleum Markets – Takes steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, which experts have noted is driving up the price of a barrel of oil.
- “Use It Or Lose It” for Oil Companies Holding Permits and Not Drilling – Compels the oil industry to start drilling or lose permits on the 68 million acres of undeveloped federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing, keeping domestic supply lower and prices higher.
NOAA: Global Warming Has Damaged Our Weather
Originally posted at the Wonk Room.
The traditional media rarely discusses extreme weather events in the context of global warming. However, as the Wonk Room Global Boiling series has documented, scientists have been warning us for years that climate change will increase catastrophic weather events like the California wildfires, the East Coast heatwave, and the Midwest floods that have been taking lives and causing billions in damage in recent days.
Today, the federal government has released a report that assembles this knowledge in stark and unequivocal terms. “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate,” by the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change Science Program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the lead, warns that changes in extreme weather are “among the most serious challenges to society” in dealing with global warming. After reporting that heat waves, severe rainfall, and intense hurricanes have been on the rise – all linked to manmade global warming – the authors deliver this warning about the future:
In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.Unfortunately, some of the cautions in this long-delayed report have come too late for the victims of the Midwest Flood:
Some short-term actions taken to lessen the risk from extreme events can lead to increases in vulnerability to even larger extremes. For example, moderate flood control measures on a river can stimulate development in a now “safe” floodplain, only to see those new structures damaged when a very large flood occurs.
Republicans Filibuster Renewable Tax Credit Legislation Again
By a 52-44 vote, the Senate failed to achieve cloture on the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049), the tax package that included extensions of the renewable production tax credit, energy efficiency incentives, and a suite of other tax credit extensions. This version included an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch without any offset.
Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) cast a procedural vote with the Republicans and Sens. Clinton, Kennedy, McCain, and Obama did not vote. Sens. Collins, Coleman, Corker, Smith, and Snowe voted with the Democrats (Collins, Coleman, and Smith are up for re-election). The voting was otherwise entirely on party lines.
The timeline of the tax credits:- FILIBUSTERED: June 17: H.R. 6049 filibustered 52-44 (Reid procedural vote with GOP)
- FILIBUSTERED: June 10: H.R. 6049 filibustered 50-44 (Reid procedural vote with GOP)
- PASSES SENATE, DIES IN HOUSE: April 10: S.Amdt. 4419 (tax credits without offsets, attached to Dodd housing bill) passes 88-8; not in House version
- PASSES HOUSE: February 27: House passes Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (H.R. 5351; tax credits paid by closing oil loopholes) 236-182; referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
- FILIBUSTERED: February 6: S. Amdt 3983 to H.R. 5140 (tax credits without offsets, attached to stimulus package) filibustered by one vote (58-41; Reid procedural vote with GOP, McCain not voting)
- January 30: Senate Finance Committee attaches tax credits to stimulus package
- FILIBUSTERED: December 13: H.R. 6 (tax credits paid by closing oil loopholes) filibustered by one vote (59-40; Landrieu with GOP, McCain not voting). Version of H.R. 6 without tax credits or RES passes 86-8.
- PASSES HOUSE: December 6: House passes H.R. 6 with tax credits and RES 235-181.
- June 21: Senate passes S.Amdt.1502 to H.R. 6 (no tax credits or RES)
- FILIBUSTERED: June 21: S.Amdt. 1704 to S.Amdt. 1502 to to H.R. 6 (tax credits paid by closing oil loopholes) filibustered 57-36 (Landrieu with GOP, Boxer, Brownback, Coburn, Johnson, McCain, Sessions not voting)
- PASSES HOUSE: January 18: House passes H.R. 6 with tax credits and RES 264-163.
House Democrats Introduce Climate MATTERS Act 3
U.S. Representatives Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) today introduced the Climate MATTERS Act (Climate Market Auction Trust and Trade Emissions Reduction System) to institute a cap-and-trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. This is the first such bill to receive primary referral to the Ways and Means Committee, which is scheduling a hearing on it within a month.
The bill’s 2050 target is 80% below 1990 levels, and auctions 85% permits from the start, moving to 100% by 2020. Funds from the auction are directed primarily to consumers and workers, including a fund for healthcare.
The following environmental organizations released a joint statement heralding the legislation for its “strong, science-based targets” and “best practices of cap-and-trade policy”: Alaska Wilderness League, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Environment America, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society.
Bill summary provided by the authors:
The Climate MATTERS Act (Climate Market, Auction, Trust & Trade Emissions Reduction System)
The Climate MATTERS Act develops an innovative plan for the auction, revenue and trade aspects of a cap and trade system.
Strikes a Balance: The Climate MATTERS Act is environmentally strong, but realistic about its goals and methods to accomplish them.
Domestic Auction- The Climate MATTERS Act emissions cap will reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
- Beginning by auctioning 85% of all emissions allowances, this bill quickly moves to a 100% auction in 2020.
- While excluding agriculture, forestry and small businesses from the emissions cap, this bill also provides incentives for these sectors to reduce their emissions.
Green Investment Plan for Auction Revenue
- As the comprehensive auction system raises significant new revenue, this bill recognizes that this revenue is an important aspect of a comprehensive response to global warming. The Climate MATTERS Act devotes this revenue to addressing the social, economic and environmental aspects of adapting to a clean energy economy and offsetting the inevitable impacts of climate change.
Consumer and Worker Assistance
- Consumer Assistance: Provides substantial assistance to American families in meeting their household needs and making energy efficient improvements.
- Part of the revenue is used to create the “Healthy Families Fund.” The reserve fund acknowledges that climate change and lack of access to affordable healthcare are two of the largest problems America confronts. This fund will assist households with the costs of obtaining and maintaining healthcare coverage as we transition to a new clean energy future.
- Affected Worker Assistance: Provides funding for adjustment assistance, employment services, income-maintenance, and needs-related payments for workers to ease the transition to a low carbon economy. Funds will also assist communities in attracting new employers, provide local government services.
- Worker Training: Supplements funding for green worker training, and provides funding for the advancement of environmental education to create an environmentally-literate workforce.
- Provides funding to conserve natural resources, mitigate impacts and help wildlife and ecosystems survive global warming. Provides funding to help the developing countries begin to adapt to a changing climate.
- Provides funding to achieve real, verifiable, additional, permanent, and enforceable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture and forestry sectors, as well as promoting forest restoration and deforestation reduction efforts internationally.
Transition to a Clean Energy Economy
- Technological Development: Provides funding for the advancement of basic renewable energy technologies.
- Energy Efficiency: Provides funding for energy efficiency and conservation, advancement in mass transit and provides funding to load serving entities to implement energy efficiency programs for their customers. In addition, the bill provides funding for heating and weatherization assistance programs.
- Early Action: Provides funding to operators of emitting facilities in recognition of early action to reduce greenhouse gases.
- International Technology and Adaptation: Provides funding to qualified developing countries to accelerate low carbon technologies and assist the most vulnerable developing countries cope with climate change impacts.
International Cooperation
- The Climate MATTERS Act also provides strong encouragement to other countries such as China and India to participate through a combination of carrots and sticks in a manner designed to be WTO compliant.
- The bill provides incentives to encourage early implementation of cap and trade agreements by allowing flexibility in setting emissions levels in a limited number of initial agreements.
- Carbon-intensive goods from countries lacking such emissions caps cannot enter the U.S. market without allowances purchased to cover their carbon footprint.
- In addition, the Climate MATTERS Act acknowledges the substantial benefits of tropical deforestation reductions by providing negotiators the ability to reward countries that significantly reduce deforestation, even if they are unable to implement a comprehensive emissions cap.
Tax Offset
The Climate MATTERS Act devotes a portion of the auction proceeds to ensure the bill does not add to our national debt.
Ten Democratic Senators Voice Industry-Based Concerns With Climate Legislation
From the Wonk Room.
To that point we have laid out the following principles and concerns that must be considered and fully addressed in any final legislation.
The senators’ letter uses practically the same talking points and specific policy demands as the industry polluters who fought to kill the legislation, in particular the industry lobbying groups American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). A review of the letter reveals the Boxer substitute (S. Amdt. 4825 to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, S. 3036) already made concessions to these parochial and fossil-industry demands:
Point #1: “Contain Costs and Prevent Harm to the U.S. Economy.”
| Fossil Ten Senators | “While placing a cost on carbon is important, we believe that there must be a balance and a short-term cushion when new technologies may not be available as hoped for or are more expensive than assumed.” |
| ACCCE | “Protect American consumers and the U.S. economy through effective cost-containment measures.” |
| NAM | “Include a safety valve or other equally effective and responsive cost-containment mechanism . . . Support economic growth and do no harm to U.S. economy.” |
Commentary: Lieberman-Warner already included a significant “transition assistance” in the form of free permits to polluters [Secs. 541 – 572], borrowing (15 percent of obligation) [Sec. 511] and offset provisions (30 percent of obligation) [Title III], and a “cost containment” auction that would contain the price of seven percent of all allowances sold to polluters [Sec. 522]. A “carbon market efficiency board” is given the authority to loosen restrictions on borrowing and offset use—but not to tighten them [Sec. 521]. What’s left is even greater permit giveaways or “safety valves” that would allow polluters to bust the cap.
Point #2: “Invest Aggressively in New Technologies and Deployment of Existing Technologies.”
| Senators | “It is critical that we design effective mechanisms to augment and accelerate government-sponsored technology R&D programs and incentives that will motivate rapid deployment of those technologies without picking winners and losers. We also want to include proposals to provide funding for carbon capture and storage and other critical low carbon technologies in advance of resources being available through the auction of emission allowances.” |
| ACCCE | “Guarantee, through public-private sector partnerships, aggressive, near- and long-term investments in new, advanced technologies that 1) avoid or reduce CO2 emissions, 2) capture, transport, and safely store CO2, and 3) use CO2 in beneficial ways, whenever practical.” |
| NAM | “Promote advanced, energy efficient and zero-and-low-GHG emission and sequestration technologies as part of a long-term strategy.” |
Truth: The Fossil Ten claim they don’t want to pick “winners and losers” but then call for special support for “carbon capture and storage”—an important but experimental coal industry technology that already received special consideration under the Boxer substitute. In fact, the Boxer substitute called for a special “Kick-Start for Carbon Capture and Sequestration” fund that would go into effect within 120 days, years before emissions reductions would have to take place [Sec. 1005]. Evidently that’s not enough.
Point #3: “Treat States Equitably.”
| Senators | “The allocation structure of a cap-and-trade bill must be designed to balance these burdens across states and regions and be sufficiently transparent to be understood.” |
| ACCCE | “For example, if a cap-and-trade program were to be implemented, it would be essential to have fair and equitable allocation of emission allowances.” |
| NAM | “Be equitable and economy-wide in scope” |
Commentary: Lieberman-Warner reserved three to four percent of allowances for states with high manufacturing and coal mining, in an admittedly complex formula [Sec. 602]. Another one percent of allowances would go to Alaska [Sec. 624], and four to seven percent of allowances to the other 49 states, divied up for coastal states, Indian tribes [Sec. 625], and wildlife restoration [Sec. 631], for adaptation efforts in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, significant funding is allocated to American automobile manufacturers [Title XI] and the coal industry [Title X]. Of course, “equitable” and “designed to balance” is in the eye of the beholder.
Point #4: “Protect America’s Working Families.”
| Senators | “For instance, one way to provide some relief would be to provide additional allowances to utilities whose electricity prices are regulated, which would help to keep electricity prices low.” |
| American Electric Power Service Corporation | “AEP feels strongly that the electric sector should receive emission allowances commensurate with its pro rata share of the emission caps in the legislation, whether emissions are regulated upstream or downstream.” |
Commentary: Even though experts agree allowances should be auctioned, Lieberman-Warner already provided such utilities with free allowances – 18 percent of all initial permits given away for free to fossil-fueled electricity generators [Sec. 551]. Furthermore, the bill already had significant assistance provisions for American families: a tax rebate fund that grows from 3.5 percent of permits to 15 percent in 20 years [Sec. 582], 13 percent of allowances reserved for local distribution companies to provide support to low- and middle-income consumers [Sec. 601], and the aforementioned assistance to states.
Point #5: “Protect U.S. Manufacturing Jobs and Strengthen International Competitiveness.”
| Senators | “The final bill must include enhanced safeguards to ensure a truly equitable and effective global effort that minimizes harm to the U.S. economy and protects American jobs. Furthermore, we must adequately help manufacturers transition to a low carbon economy to maintain domestic jobs and production.” |
| NAM | “Give consideration to industries exposed to foreign competition if a U.S. climate change policy creates competitive disadvantages.” |
Commentary: As the senators’ letter recognized, Lieberman-Warner already has a “mechanism to protect U.S. manufacturers from international competitors that do not face the same carbon constraints [Sec. 1306].” And Lieberman-Warner already reserved 11 percent of allowances for the first ten years of the program to be given away for free to carbon-intensive manufacturers [Sec. 541].
Point #6: “Fully Recognize Agriculture and Forestry’s Role.”
| Senators | “Strong, aggressive and verifiable offset policies can fully utilize the capabilities of our farmers and forests.” |
| ACCCE | “Allow broad use of verifiable actions to offset manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Use of verifiable offsets (from domestic or international action), should be unlimited because they help achieve cost-effective reductions in manmade greenhouse gas emissions. . . Programs such as terrestrial carbon sequestration, conservation, and energy efficiency are important domestic and international tools to reduce the carbon footprint of greenhouse gas emitters.” |
| Edison Electric Institute (EEI) | “Provide for the robust use of a broad range of domestic and international GHG offsets.” |
Commentary: Lieberman-Warner already included “strong, aggressive and verifiable” offset policies – 15 percent each for domestic and international projects. Behind the rhetoric of “farmers and forests” lies the reality that the most easily verifiable offsets come from methane emissions from coal mining and industrial agriculture waste ponds – practices that should be dealt with for other safety and health reasons. As the restrictions on offset use are loosened, the regulatory infrastructure needed to verify offsets increases. The pollution industry would like to see offset usage be unlimited, which would require a complex new regulatory bureaucracy that the polluters would oppose tooth and nail.
Point #7: “Clarify Federal/State Authority.”
| Senators | “Congress should adopt a mandatory federal cap-and-trade program that will be the single regulatory regime for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.” |
| ACCCE | “Avoid a patchwork of conflicting standards or duplicative programs through the adoption of a uniform federal program.” |
| NAM | “Preempt all state climate change laws” |
| EEI | “Provide certainty and a consistent national policy” |
Commentary: Lieberman-Warner would distribute four percent of allowances (growing to ten percent by 2032) to states who “show leadership” on reducing emissions—but only those that do not have a conflicting cap-and-trade program. The senators are joining the Bush administration in the attempt to block and preempt state-level regulation of greenhouse gases.
Point #8: “Provide Accountability for Consumer Dollars.”
| Senators | “The cap and trade program developed in the Lieberman-Warner bill has the potential to raise over $7 trillion. Much of these funds will be indirectly paid for by consumers through increased energy prices. The federal government has a fundamental obligation to ensure these funds are being spent in a responsible and wise manner. The development of any cap and trade program must recognize the sensitivity of this obligation and eliminate all possibility of waste, fraud or abuse.” |
| American Petroleum Institute | “Be transparent and understandable to all consumers and stakeholders.” |
Commentary: Considering that these senators are also calling for federal preemption of stronger state regulations, greater subsidies for the coal industry, electric utilities, and manufacturers, and even greater “cost-containment” provisions than those already in Lieberman-Warner, it’s hard to imagine what they consider to be “responsible and wise” spending or the elimination of “waste, fraud or abuse.”
Sen. Boxer’s version of Lieberman-Warner attempted to satisfy these kinds of demands as well as progressive principles espoused by other senators. Download the This letter.
Senate Republicans block movement on two bills to spur renewable energy investment
Cross-posted from Gristmill.
With gas prices now averaging a record $4.04 a gallon in the United States, the Senate voted on two bills Tuesday that would have revoked tax breaks for Big Oil and extended tax credits to renewable energy. Proponents of the two measures touted them as vital for consumer relief and transition to new energy sources, but both measures failed to muster the 60 votes needed to proceed.
The first vote, on the Consumer First Energy Act (S. 3044), fell short of cloture by a vote of 51-43. The second, on the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049), failed by a vote of 50-44. Both votes fell largely along party lines.
The Consumer First Energy Act
The Consumer First Energy Act would have levied a 25 percent tax on “windfall profits” of major oil companies, the proceeds of which would be invested in the Energy Independence and Security Act Trust Fund. Companies could avoid the tax by investing in renewable energy.
“It will force the oil companies to do something to help us get out of this mess instead of just profiting from it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the floor shortly before the vote.
The bill would also repeal tax breaks for major oil and gas companies, estimated at a value of $17 billion over the next 10 years, and suspend filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the end of 2008. There were measures to discourage “price gouging” and limit speculation in oil markets. The bill would also call for a NOPEC policy (clever acronym alert: “No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels”). This would crack down on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) by amending anti-trust laws and allowing the U.S. Attorney General to take legal action against countries and companies. Currently, a court ruling from 1979 gives OPEC members immunity in U.S. courts.
Republican leaders spoke on the floor in favor of expanding domestic oil drilling in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a solution to gas-price woes rather than measures to move toward renewable energy sources. “This bill isn’t a serious response to high gas prices. It’s just a gimmick,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “Republicans are determined to lower gas prices the only way we can: increasing supply.”
But proponents of the bill were adamant that the only way to bring down the costs of oil in the long term is to curb the country’s dependence on the fossil fuel. “We are in an oil crisis, and we better start taking action to get out of this mess,” said Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). “Feeding that addiction by tapping another vein just drills us into a deeper hole.”
Democratic leaders pointed out that Republicans wanted to talk about gas prices last week, when a climate change bill was on the floor, but when a bill addressing the underlying causes of high gas prices came up, Republicans refused to let it proceed.
“Last week they wanted to make global warming legislation about gas prices,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “When they have the chance to vote on it, they walk away.”
Six Republicans – Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), and John Warner (Va.) – voted in favor of moving to debate on the proposed legislation. Democrat Mary Landrieu (La.) voted against it (as did Reid, but his was a procedural move to ensure that he can bring the bill to the floor again in the future).
The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act
The second bill, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, was the Senate partner to the tax-extenders legislation that passed in the House last month. The $54 billion package would have extended tax breaks for renewable energy that are set to expire at the end of this year. It includes a six-year extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy; a three-year extension of the production tax credit for biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, and solid waste; and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy. The bill also has incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels, incentives for companies that produce energy-efficient products, and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential buildings. Funding for the tax credits would come from closing loopholes for hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations.
Republicans Smith, Snowe, and Bob Corker (Tenn.) voted in favor of cloture on the bill, as did all of the Democrats present for the vote.
The tax-break extensions have stalled in the Senate several times before, and folks in the renewables industry are starting to get nervous as we near the expiration of those credits at the end of this year.
“More than ever, with record energy prices, record unemployment, and grave concerns about global warming, Congress needs to work out differences so we can stabilize energy costs for consumers and businesses, improve our nation’s energy security, and create tens of thousands of quality, green-collar jobs,” said Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch following the vote.
Green groups rushed to chastise GOP leaders for the obstruction. “By once again blocking efforts to extend these crucial clean energy tax incentives that are in danger of expiring, this minority is responsible for kicking the economy while it’s down,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope in a written statement. “Jobs are already being lost in the renewable-energy industry and at least 100,000 more could disappear unless Congress acts to immediately renew these tax incentives.”
Lieberman-Warner Filibustered, 48-36
From the Wonk Room.
This morning, in the only order of business today, the Senate voted 48-36 to filibuster the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036) – 60 votes would have been required to achieve cloture and limit debate. 16 senators – six Democrats and ten Republicans – failed to vote.
The vote was specifically on cloture for Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) substititute amendment (S.A. 4825) to the bill.
Voting in the affirmative were 39 Democrats, seven Republicans, and two independents (Republicans and independents in ALL CAPS, senators up for re-election in bold, senators retiring in italics):Akaka Baucus Bayh Bingaman Boxer Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey COLLINS Dodd DOLE Durbin Feingold Feinstein Harkin Inouye Kerry Klobuchar Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin LIEBERMAN Lincoln MARTINEZ McCaskill Menendez Mikulski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Pryor Reed Reid Rockefeller Salazar SANDERS Schumer SMITH SNOWE Stabenow SUNUNU Tester WARNER Webb Whitehouse WydenVoting in the negative were 32 Republicans and four Democrats (Democrats in ALL CAPS, senators up for re-election in bold, senators retiring in italics):
Alexander Allard Barrasso Bennett Bond BROWN Brownback Bunning Burr Chambliss Coburn Cochran Corker Crapo Domenici DORGAN Ensign Enzi Grassley Hagel Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Isakson Kyl McConnell JOHNSON LANDRIEU Lugar Roberts Sessions Shelby Thune Vitter Voinovich WickerNot voting were six Democrats and 10 Republicans (Democrats in ALL CAPS, senators up for re-election in bold, senators retiring in italics):
BIDEN BYRD CLINTON Coleman CONRAD Cornyn Craig DeMint Graham Gregg KENNEDY McCain Murkowski OBAMA Specter Stevens
Biden, Clinton, Coleman, Kennedy, McCain, and Obama submitted statements indicating they would have voted for cloture.