Live-blogging debate on earmarks
I’m updating the entry on the energy and water earmarks debate as events progress, and updating that entry with more information about the earmarks as I pore over the document.
Agriculture Markup - FY 2008 Appropriations
Business meeting to markup proposed legislation making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008
Debate on 2008 Energy and Water Earmarks 1
The House will have the floor debate on the $1.1 billion in member earmarks to the FY 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill (HR 2641) approved last week by the House Appropriations Committee in a voice vote.
The measure, House Report 110-185 Part 2 (full pdf), amounts to about 3 percent of the $31.6 billion the bill would provide to the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation and several independent agencies.
The committee estimates that $3.4 billion of the bill goes to elements dealing with climate change, $1 billion more than in the President’s budget request. More on the original bill below the fold.
- $158 million for DOE Climate Change Research an increase of $20 million (by way of comparison, $428 million is going to fusion research)
- $1.6 billion for renewable energy and energy conservation RDD&D programs, an increase of $528 million over the budget request.
- $195 million for hydrogen fuel cells, a decrease of $18.4 million below the budget request
- $250 million for biomass R&D, an increase of $71 million
- $200 million for solar energy programs, an increase of $52 million
- $57.5 million for wind energy systems, an increase of $17.4 million
- $44.3 million for geothermal (not in the budget request at all)
- $22 million for hydropower (not in the budget request)
- $235 million for hybrid vehicles and related automotive R&D, an increase of $59 million
- $146 million for building efficiency programs, an increase of $60 million
- $57 million for efficiency programs for energy-intensive industries, an increase of $11 million
- $27 million for Federal Energy Management Programs, an increase of $10 million
- $246 million for weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of $102 million
- $10 million for international efforts addressing greenhouse gas reduction technologies, energy efficiency, international standards, and energy security for continuing dialogue to include western nations, and countries with emerging economies. Within the International Renewable Energy Program account, no more than $2 million may be spent on the Asia-Pacific Initiative.
There are 127 earmarks in energy efficiency and renewable energy, most in the $500K-$1.5 million range; 15 electricity delivery earmarks; 13 fossil energy research earmarks, including $1.45 million to the Coal Fuels Alliance in Kentucky and $1.5 million to the Stripper Well Consortium, and $2 million for carbon sequestration studies; 89 science earmarks, many unrelated to energy or water (a lot of hospitals).
- 1 PM: Debate begins on the earmarks. Rothman withdraws an earmark to North Bergen, New Jersey.
- 1:01 PM: Visclosky is talking about the earmark projects.
- 1:05 PM: Flake calls to remove a $1 million earmark on his district for the Achieving a College Education (ACE) program at Maricopa Community Colleges in the DOE Office of the Administrator’s budget.
- 1:09 PM: Ed Pastor defends the earmark.
- 1:15 PM: The earmark stands by a voice vote.
- 1:16 PM Flake calls to remove a $1 million earmark for the Nanosystems Initiative at the University of Rochester.
- 1:20 PM: The earmark stands by a voice vote.
- 1:22 PM: Flake calls to remove a $1 million earmark for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructures in Pennsylvania, which according to the certification letter, appears to be a pass-through to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, which has received many earmarks in previous years. Does the center exist?
- Visclosky At this time I do not know. If the center does not exist, it will not receive the money.
- 1:27 PM: The earmark stands; Flake calls for a recorded vote.
- 1:34 PM Hensarling (R-TX 5) calls to remove a $10.5 million earmark to the South Carolina HBCU Math and Science Initiative.
- 1:40 PM James Clyburn (D-SC 6, majority whip) defends the earmark.
- 1:45 PM The earmark stands; Hensarling calls for a recorded vote.
- 1:46 PM Hensarling calls to remove a $1 million earmark for the University of Dubuque Environmental Science Center. He talks about a letter from a disabled grandmother raising three children who can’t go to church because gas costs too much.
- 1:51 PM The earmark stands by a voice vote.
- 1:52 PM Hensarling calls to remove a $500,000 earmark for the Emmanuel College Center for Science Partnership. “Where does the madness stop?” “Shall we subsidize Girl Scout cookies?”
- 1:57 PM Capuano (D-MA 8) defends the earmark; it’s a private university in a private partnership with Merck.
- 1:58 PM Hensarling: Taxes are bad.
- 1:59 PM Capuano I don’t like paying taxes unless we use for wise purposes. If we’re so concerned with taxes, then why are we still in Iraq? All we’d have to do is shut down in Iraq for less than 30 seconds.”
- 2:00 PM The earmark stands; Hensarling calls for a recorded vote.
- 3:36 PM The earmark votes have been taken. The final bill is being presented for its passage.
Climate Change Bills Comparison 4
- Bingaman-Specter’s Low Carbon Economy Act (S. 1766)
- Udall-Petri discussion draft
- Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 280)
- Kerry-Snow Global Warming Reduction Act (S. 485)
- Waxman Safe Climate Act (HR 1590)
- Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309)
- Feinstein-Carper Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act (S. 317), electric utility cap-and-trade
- Alexander-Lieberman Clean Air/Climate Change Act (S. 1168), electric utility cap-and-trade
- Stark Save Our Climate Act (HR 2069), a carbon tax bill
This chart (pdf) compares the cap-and-trade mechanisms, and This graph (pdf) compares the emission reduction goals of the bills. View the graph below the fold.
Bingaman-Specter Low Carbon Economy Act
On Wednesday, Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the text of the “Low Carbon Economy Act” (S 1766), an industry-friendly cap-and-trade bill.
The targets are 2006 levels of emissions by 2020, 1990 levels by 2030. No targets are set before 2020.
Price of CO2 is not set by market, but by the legislation at $12 a ton, rising each year at 5% above inflation. This decouples the price of CO2 from the target reductions, a central component of most cap-and-trade systems.
Allowances are intially given away to the private sector, the bonanza being reduced after five years. Allowances will also be given away for fuel converted to feedstock and for fuel or other GHG precursors (e.g. HFCs) exported from the United States (Section 301).
Sectors covered are limited to petroleum and natural gas plants and importers, and large coal-consuming (>5000 Ton/yr) facilities.
The bill was written by the National Commission on Energy Policy (a project of the The Bipartisan Policy Center, supported primarily by the Hewlett Foundation) and supported by coal-intensive and nuclear industry players including American Electric Power, Duke Energy Corp., Edison International, Exelon Corp., PNM Resources, PPL Corp. and NRG Energy Inc.
Pelosi vs. Dingell on CAFE
Lobbyists are still working to alter key parts of the legislation as it moves to the House floor and later to conference committee with the Senate. The American Petroleum Institute has been lobbying to limit the impact of tax measures that would effectively boost oil companies’ corporate income tax rate and increase royalty payments. Coal and nuclear advocates are pushing for additional loan guarantees and tax breaks. Beef and poultry producers that use corn feed hope to dilute incentives for corn-based ethanol.
Energy Bill Checklist
Crossposted at Daily Kos.
Last week I diaried on the key battles in the Senate energy bill, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (SA 1502):
- No on Coal-to-Liquid
- No on restricting EPA or state regulation of motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases
- No on diluting definition of biofuels
- No on changing “renewable” to “alternative” in legislation
- No on offshore drilling
- Yes on strong CAFE standards (no on weakening further)
- Yes on price-gouging regulation (the right-wingers are fighting this hard)
- Yes on national Renewable Portfolio Standard of 15% by 2015, 20% by 2020 (if we’re lucky, we’ll get legislation for 15% by 2020)
- Yes on incentives for distributed generation (aka cogeneration, net metering, electranet) at the commercial and residential level
- Yes on support for energy efficiency, especially
- Yes on funding of The Weatherization Assistance Program
- Yes on funding renewable energy by removing some oil subsidies
So what were the results?
Here are the issues:
| ISSUE | RESULT |
| No on Coal-to-Liquid |  (Tester amdt. S.AMDT.1614 rejected 33-61, Bunning amdt. S.AMDT 1628 rejected 39-55) |
| No on restricting EPA or state regulation of motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases | |
| No on diluting definition of biofuels |  (Kyl amdt. S.AMDT.1800 rejected 45-49) |
| No on changing “renewable” to “alternative” in legislation | |
| No on offshore drilling | |
| Yes on strong CAFE standards (no on weakening further) | (Pryor-Bond-Levin-Stabenow amdt. S.AMDT. 1711 not considered) |
| Yes on price-gouging regulation (the right-wingers are fighting this hard) | (Title VI of S.AMDT.1502) |
| Yes on national Renewable Portfolio Standard of 15% by 2015, 20% by 2020 | (Bingaman amdt. S.AMDT.1537 withdrawn under filibuster threat) |
| Yes on incentives for distributed generation (aka cogeneration, net metering, electranet) at the commercial and residential level | (issue held for next round of energy legislation) |
| Yes on major increase in funding of The Weatherization Assistance Program (which Bush is trying to slash) | (Title II, Subtitle F of S.AMDT.1502) |
| Yes on funding renewable energy by removing some subsidies to oil industry | (Baucus amdt. S.AMDT.1704 filibustered 57-36) |
- while the CAFE standards are being increased, they are certainly not aggressive increases. Still, a lot better than the zero action the Bush administration and auto industry wanted.
- the increase to the Weatherization Assistance program is about 7%, instead of the 25% increase which would have had optimal results. Still, a lot better than the zeroing out that Bush wanted.
Markup of Carbon-Neutral Government Act and Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act
The Oversight Committee is holding a business meeting at 10:00 a.m. to consider several bills. The Carbon-Neutral Government Act (H.R. 2635), is designed to reduce the emissions of the federal government, currently the largest energy consumer in the United States.
The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project at 45: Sustainable Water for the 21st Century
The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Water and Power, led by Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA), will hold an oversight field hearing on “The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project at 45: Sustainable Water for the 21st Century.”
Witnesses:
Panel I- Bill Long, President, Southeastern Colorado Conservancy District, Pueblo, CO
- Mike Ryan, Regional Director, Great Plains Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, MT
- The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, Colorado Springs, CO
- Terry Scanga, General Manager, Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, Salida, CO
- Bill Thiebaut, District Attorney, Pueblo County, CO
- Jay Winner, General Manager, Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District, Rocky Ford, CO
- Sandy White, Water Lawyer, La Veta, CO
- The Honorable Edward J. Tauer, Mayor, Aurora, CO
- Drew Peternell, Director, Colorado Water Project, Trout Unlimited, Boulder, CO
- Chris Treese, Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Glenwood Springs, CO
- Wally Stealey, Arkansas Valley Rancher, Pueblo, CO
Water Reuse and Reclamation: H.R. 716, H.R. 236, H.R. 1503 and H.R. 1725
- H.R. 716 (Woolsey, D-CA): The Santa Rosa Urban Water Reuse Plan Act
- H.R. 236 (Thompson, D-CA): The North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007
- H.R 1503 (Grijalva, D-AZ): The Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project
- H.R. 1725 (Bono, R-CA): The Rancho California Water District Recycled Water Reclamation Facility Act of 2007
Witnesses:
Panel 1- Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.
- Tim Smith (H.R. 236), Sonoma County Supervisor, District 3, Board of Supervisors, Santa Rosa, CA
- Michael Martini (H.R. 716), Santa Rosa City Councilmember, Santa Rosa, CA
- Michael Gritzuk (H.R. 1503), Director, Pima County Wastewater Management, Tucson, AZ
- Dr. Brian J. Brady (H.R. 1725), General Manager, Rancho California Water District, Temecula, CA