Hill Heat

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has released the Chairman’s Mark of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and herself in September. In the most significant change, the chair has filled in the allowance allocation scheme for the bill’s carbon market, distributing allowances to utilities, refiners, industry, states and tribes for various purposes. Some auction allowances are delivered directly to consumers.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a preliminary economic analysis of the legislation, arguing that its impacts would be largely equivalent to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), which it closely resembles. The EPA did not complete economic modeling for S. 1733, but based on its similarities to H.R. 2454, predicted:

It is likely that the full suite of EPA models would show that the impacts of S. 1733 would be similar to those that were estimated for H.R. 2454.

According to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Chairman’s Mark introduces the following changes to the initial draft of the legislation:

Specifies Distribution of Emissions Allowances The Chairman’s Mark specifies the distribution of the allowances established under the Pollution Reduction and Investment program. The allocations place emphasis on investments in the following areas:

• Energy Intensive and Trade Exposed industries
• Small local distribution companies (including rural electric co-operatives)
• Transportation grants
• Agriculture and forestry
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• Advanced energy research
• Credits for early action
• Energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training
• Nuclear worker training

New Provisions To Address Clean Coal Technology

• The Chairman’s Mark includes new provisions to stimulate development of commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies
• The bonus allowance program is modified to allow for advanced payments of bonus allowances for early actors with a requirement that funded projects will achieve at least a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
• The Chairman’s Mark includes provisions that require coal fired power plants to meet emissions performance standards once sufficient commercial-scale CCS technology has been deployed, while also ensuring timely reductions in global warming pollution from coal plants.

Increased Investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

• The Chairman’s Mark increases investments in utility-scale renewable energy generation.
• The 25 percent set-aside for local governments for energy efficiency and conservation block grant continues unchanged.
• The Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program is guaranteed a share of the allocation provided to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
• Allowances are also dedicated to energy efficiency programs, including a specific requirement that states use some of these funds for thermal energy efficiency projects.
• Priority is given to low and moderate-income households and a dedicated portion of the energy efficiency set-aside is reserved for low-income households and for public housing retrofits.
• The Chairman’s Mark includes a new program that authorizes the EPA Administrator to provide assistance to owners and operators of buildings in the United States that implement energy efficiency measures that meet Energy Star or other relevant standards.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Increasing Investments in the Transportation Sector

• A new allocation program with increased investments is established specifically to fund transportation projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Funds are provided for the “Clean-Tea” planning and performance grants program and for Transit formula grants.
• The Clean Vehicles program is modified to place a stronger emphasis on the domestic manufacturing of advanced technology vehicles, including transit vehicles.

Enhanced Agriculture and Forestry Provisions

• A more robust supplemental agriculture and forestry program is included with allocations throughout the life of the bill. The Supplemental Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Renewable Energy Program is strengthened to ensure measurable reductions in global warming pollution.

Directs Assistance to Rural Communities

• The Chairman’s Mark increases allowances for small electric Local Distribution Companies, including Rural Electric Cooperatives, which will benefit rural electric consumers.
• The Chairman’s Mark includes a new program to provide grants to states and non-profits to improve air quality by replacing outdated wood stoves.

Promotes Advanced Renewable Fuels

• The definition of biofuels in the Renewable Fuel Standard is clarified to make clear that algae-based and other advanced fuels are included.

Enhances the Role of Tribes

• Tribes are recognized in a number of ways throughout the Chairman’s Mark. Tribes receive guaranteed allocations for the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. The Chairman’s Mark also enhances the role that Tribes will play in a number of programs in the bill.

Bigger Market Stability Reserve

• To maintain price certainty and prevent market manipulation, the size of the market stability reserve is increased in the Chairman’s Mark.

Greater Assistance for Small and Medium Refineries

• Small business refiners are given additional time to comply with the Pollution Reduction and Investment program. In addition, the domestic fuel production allowance program focuses on small and medium refineries.

Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)

E&E News We’re creating this policy – or at least this bill contemplates creating a policy – that has a lot of human giving away of free allowances. All kinds of things that distort the market, and it just seems that if truly the goal was to lower the amount of carbon there would be a proposal just to tax it and to lower some other tax and be done with it.

James Inhofe (R-Ok.)

Roll Call We need to remind the American public, for example, that the 1,400-page Waxman-Markey monstrosity is a monument to big government that will make food, gasoline and electricity more expensive, increase mandates on small businesses, and increase the size and reach of the federal bureaucracy — all while doing nothing to affect climate change. The Kerry-Boxer legislation introduced Sept. 30 is, in many ways, worse than the Waxman-Markey bill. This reflects the attitude of one of the bill’s sponsors, who said recently that, because of the recession, businesses should be expected to make even more expensive emissions reductions. While it’s never a good time to pass a national energy tax, one would have thought that imposing such a tax during a recession is especially bad. Over the past week, many people have speculated about the potential for a grand Senate climate deal, tying cap-and-trade to the expansion of nuclear power and offshore drilling. Both policies make eminent sense and are key components of the Republican “all-of-the-above” energy policy. But tying those policies to a massive national energy tax makes no sense, which is why there’s little hope for a deal so long as it involves cap-and-trade.

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Washington Post Count me as one of those who will keep my mind open as we move forward. When you see changes to the land coming about … what is causing the loss of the sea ice that adds to the erosion issues, yes, in Alaska we are seeing change. That’s why I have been one of those Republicans who has stepped out front a little bit more on the issue of climate change.

Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Washington Post Because while we’re projecting these things, people are having to deal with their basic lives on it, and this is going to be very expensive.

Tom Carper (D-DE)

E&E News We need to make sure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the human resources that they need to enable them to do the job.

I will be working with Joe Lieberman and others to create a more robust nuclear title when the bill comes to the floor, and among the things that we will be working on is, we want to make sure we invest the right amount of money in nuclear recycling, nuclear reprocessing, to try to determine what is the best path to try and follow there.

To the extent that people have ideas for further streamlining, should we look at those? Sure. But keep in mind a lot has been done, there is an incredibly heavy workload for the NRC already, and we have got make sure they have the resources they need.

Dick Durbin (D-IL)

E&E News It’s not a bad starting point to try and engage as many people as you can to find out if there is some common ground here. And I’m open to these things. I think both of them carry with them environmental concerns, serious environmental concerns. But if they’re going to deal with those honestly and directly, then maybe there’s room for conversation.

We also have a majority leader who’s interested in the nuclear power issue, too. So we have to be sensitive to that. But I think it’s perfectly all right to start with an agenda that is inclusive and try to build on that.

Judd Gregg (R-NH)

E&E News If nuclear comes under that and has proper incentives, that could be a major step forward.

Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

E&E News When I first saw it, I was disappointed that they’d have a joint communiqué of any kind. It doesn’t matter what happens, for Kerry, if he were inclined to move in that direction. It’s not going to stay, anyway. I think we all understand that. It wouldn’t survive. You always have the House to deal with. Pelosi. And I can’t see that it would.

John Kerry (D-MA)

E&E News We really haven’t gotten specific about a Kerry-Graham bill. What we’re really trying to do is get a coalition together to make this pass. What shape that takes at this point, I think, is down the road. I suppose it can develop into a bill, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be ours. It could part of a leadership effort, or some other effort.

Contributors to the liberal community blog DailyKos have launched an environment-themed offshoot, DK GreenRoots. The site is led by Timothy Lange, who uses the handle Meteor Blades, Doug Snodgrass (dsnodgrass), and the Daily Kos contributor known as “Patriot Daily.”

Another Daily Kos project, led by contributor RL Miller, is the Adopt-A-Senator campaign on climate change legislation, with community members contributing profiles on the senators and where they stand on climate and energy policy, in particular the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) and the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733).

Hill Heat is tracking the published Adopt-a-Senator diaries at hillheat.com/pages/aas.

Hill Heat has acquired the global warming chapter from the new book SuperFreakonomics, the sequel to the best-selling Freakonomics, by economists Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. The authors write that “Any religion, meanwhile, has its heretics, and global warming is no exception,” and that “it’s illogical to believe in a carbon-induced warming apocalypse.” At Climate Progress, Joseph Romm has a harsh critique of basic errors in science. Romm also quotes climate scientist Ken Caldeira, who tells Romm:

Every carbon dioxide emission adds to climate damage and increasing risk of catastrophic consequences.

In SuperFreakonomics, however, Levitt and Dubner claim that Caldeira believes “carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.”

E&E News reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham believes man-made global warming and oil dependence represent a sufficient threat to work on climate legislation, even if it is seen as a policy victory for President Obama.

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

“I think it’s fair to say the vast majority of senators are very pro-nuclear and so the way I vote on the amendment is not the deciding factor, because in this case you have a sea change of support beyond where I am.”

Tom Carper (D-Del.)

“One of the things we need to devote some resources to is beginning to figure out what to do with the spent nuclear fuel rods. Do we recycle them? Do we reprocess them? I think there’s problems with current technology on both of those. We need to figure out what to do with them. We can safely store the stuff on site. And we’ll do for several decades.”

“The legislation as drawn provides enormous incentives for the generation of electricity from sources that don’t create carbon. Nuclear is right there. So there’ll be a lot of incentives, just from the way the allowance system will be set up.”

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

“A guy like Senator Kerry is looking for coalitions. If you had a bill that would allow for responsible offshore drilling, a robust nuclear power title, I think you could get some Republican votes for a cap-and-trade system.”

“I think the planet is heating up. I think CO2 emissions are damaging the environment and this dependence on foreign oil is a natural disaster in the making. Let’s do something about it. I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.”

John Kerry (D-Mass.)

“Every idea is on the table. We’re going to work in a bona fide way with everybody to see how to bridge a gap here. We’ve got to get a 60-vote margin. That means you’ve got to legislate, which means you have to compromise.”

“There’s a nuclear title and it invites discussion on that. I’m willing to sit down with anybody and talk seriously about how we proceed in a serious way.”

Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

“There’s more common ground than there has been with health care. It just depends on what it is, but again, I think people are willing and open to talk about any energy that helps our country to put us back in the driver’s seat again.”

“I think there’ll be some beginnings of it in the committee process, but I think the whole bill, given so many different committees are working on it, the bill will ultimately come together on the floor. I think we’d be naive to think that that’s not true.”

On September 18, Sen. Bingaman (D-N.M.) told a local activist that media magnate Ted Turner visited his office to ask what he can do to convince more senators to support climate legislation. Turner owns several vast ranches in New Mexico, established as wildlife preserves. “If we know something about the problem and don’t do it,” Turner has previously commented, “then we don’t deserve to live.”

BINGAMAN: He came in this week to lobby me on – or not lobby me really, but just basically talk about what needs to be done to get some type of climate change legislation enacted. He’s very committed on that issue, and part of what he’s taken on – I mean he’s done an awful lot, as you know, with support for the United Nations – but on climate change he’s committed as well. And he was in here with some of his key people to talk about what he could do to persuade more people in the Senate to assist with climate change legislation.

Although Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) was a sharp critic of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, he has adopted a mildly supportive tone in his initial response to the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs Act.

Robert Byrd (D-W.V.)

West Virginia Gazette I am glad to see that Senators Kerry and Boxer included some of the provisions I and other senators recommended related to carbon capture and storage. I am pleased that Senators Boxer and Kerry are placing a greater focus on clean coal technology. While it is an encouraging sign, we have a long way to go on this legislation. Many issues have yet to be addressed. There is still a tough road ahead.

However, fellow West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) lashed out at the legislation for its strengthened carbon cap, calling the bill “a disappointing step in the wrong direction.”

Senate Republicans, even those who have supported climate legislation in the past or who claim to recognize the threat of climate change, have nearly universally condemned the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs Act. Only George Voinovich (R-Ohio) sounded a moderately conciliatory note:

George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

Columbus Dispatch Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio, who is on the environment committee, said he will review the bill introduced by the two Democrats but sounded a skeptical note as he said that “the devil is in the details. Climate change must be addressed in a bipartisan way—it must incentivize the clean-energy technologies we need now and in the future without driving jobs overseas and further damaging our economy.”

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

E&E News The American people are becoming very wary – and some are even frightened – by the persistence of these comprehensive plans to try to change the whole country. The Boxer-Kerry bill is a combination of fancy, complicated words that means high energy costs that will drive American jobs overseas.

Alexander These are fancy, complicated words for high-cost energy that sends jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. Instead, we should take practical steps to produce low-cost, clean, carbon-free energy and create jobs. Specifically, we should build 100 new nuclear plants, electrify half our cars and trucks, expand exploration offshore for American natural gas and oil, and double funding for energy research and development.

John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Mother Jones Barrasso, meanwhile, was all over the map. He tried to change the subject in response to a question about whether he believed climate change is real, then rambled on about how he’s talked to some people who are skeptical of anthropogenic warming before citing an experimental carbon-capture project in Wyoming to “lower and to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.” Nevertheless, he eventually concluded: “I don’t believe it is a problem at this point.”

Kit Bond (R-Mo.)

E&E News It’s hard to believe that Kerry-Boxer is worse than the other California-Massachusetts bill.

Mother Jones None of the farmers I have talked to in Missouri have expressed concerns about human-caused global climate change. We have seen in Missouri the benefits of the cooling that started in ‘98. We’ve had ample rain. We are right now worrying about making sure the growing season is long enough.”

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)

The Age This is not the time to be adding costs.

E&E News We have a positive plan, and that is more nuclear. It is time for us to look at the real answers to green energy and have something positive that is not going to be a further burden on American families.

Following the release of the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act yesterday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) called the bill “a disappointing step in the wrong direction.”

Hill Heat has learned that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) shares this view.

Nelson’s energy and environmental director Erick Lutt told Hill Heat in a telephone interview that while the Senator had not finished going over the entire bill, or made an official statement, Nelson “cannot support” Kerry-Boxer.

When asked if Nelson would join Republicans in a filibuster against climate legislation, Lutt said “it depends on what ends up in the bill.” Upon further questioning, Lutt admitted that Nelson standing with the GOP in a filibuster wasn’t “beyond possibility.”

Senators Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), though uncommitted on Kerry-Boxer, have pledged to fight a Republican filibuster.

“I am not committed to cap-and-trade under any circumstance,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told Roll Call, however.

“It’s a difficult issue,” added Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).