Chicago releases progress report on climate action plan

(Photo of Michigan Avenue from Flickr and photographer Lapstrake/Tom Gill)

I’ve noticed mostly hybrid buses up and down Michigan Avenue lately, and most of my rides are now on one of the 208 new hybrids the city bought over the past year or so. I wondered, though, what the buses looked like in other parts of the city. And now I know. The Chicago Climate Action Plan’s report has been released and it says hybrids make up just 13% of the bus fleet.

I don’t want to downplay the importance of buying these hybrids or of showcasing them in areas where tourists abound. We know the city had planned to buy more, but had to cut back the order because of budget problems. But too often the CCAP’s accomplishments have been happening under the radar – or if reported haven’t been put in context. So we don’t know how much, percentage-wise, CO2 emissions have been cut.

In an earlier post I outlined some of the raw figures Suzanne Malek-McKenna, head of the Environment Department, showed on a slide during a meeting in May. It was the first indication I’d seen of progress from the CCAP, which has a goal of cutting GHG emissions 25% (from 1990 levels) by 2020.

This 2-year progress report repeats some of those numbers and gives a bit more information, but again context is often missing and the report is written in such corporate terms it’s hard to separate the results from the process.

Energy efficiency is key
CCAP, which revealed its plans two years ago after many months of planning with the help of civic leaders, community groups, nonprofits, corporations and unions, clearly was going to focus most of its efforts on energy conservation. That made sense because 70% of emissions in Chicago came from energy use in buildings. Not a sexy topic or something you can see, like hybrid cars or windmills or shutting down coal plants.

But energy efficiency is something that can be done quickly, and the bonus is that it saves money. So quietly the city began working with its partners to weatherize buildings, both public and private.

In the past two years the city, often using federal grants, has worked with community organizations and others to weatherize 393 commercial and industrial buildings and 13,341 residential units, cutting their energy use by 21%. Steps taken including sealing air leaks, adding insulation, upgrading windows and improving heat and air conditioning systems.

Chicago now leads the country in the number of LEED certified buildings, with 134 – compared with 96 in Portland, 95 in San Francisco and 82 in New York. Looking at context again, Portland and San Francisco have much lower populations and may well lead percentage-wise, but any way you look at it we beat out the Big Apple.

Additionally, ComEd has worked with the city to get people to turn in old, inefficient appliances and lighting for more energy-efficient models. More than 2.4 million light bulbs have been changed out, making that the biggest saving in electricity and money, with air conditioners and refrigerators coming in a distant second and third.

There's more
A few other important findings in the report:

• The Park District uses 25% renewable energy at its facilities.
• Chicago has become a major hub for wind companies, with 14 now here, compared with just 4 at the end of 2008. The city’s manufacturing capabilities, proximity to areas with great potential in wind and extensive transportation networks all contribute to an environment for wind companies to settle here.
• Exelon and SunPower developed the largest urban solar power plant, with more than 32,000 panels.
• The Chicago Public Schools now purchase 20% of their electricity from alternative sources.

There’s quite a bit more. Click here to see the entire report. There’s more being done than we have been told about. I wonder why they don’t announce their accomplishments more. In the vacuum we are left to focus on two of the lingering problems: the filthy old coal plants inside city limits and the stunted recycling program.

House OKs 26 cent/barrel tax increase for Oil Spill Trust Fund

Before adjourning for Memorial Day, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax-extender package that includes an oil tax increase of 26 cents a barrel.

The bill increases a tax on the oil industry to 34 cents a barrel from 8 cents a barrel. This money would go into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

The fund helps cover economic and natural resource costs above the $75 million liability cap for private companies. The bill also raises the per-incident cap for payments from the Trust Fund to $5B from the current $1B.

The bill extends for one year (retroactive to Jan. 1) energy tax credits for biodiesel, renewable diesel, energy efficiency and alternative vehicles fuel.

It also extends the “doc fix,” which each year prevents drastic cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals.

A second bill passed that authorizes the Defense Department to spend $470M on energy efficiency, renewable energy and environmental cleanup. This is the bill that includes an amendment repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

This bill provides $5M for a pilot project to develop a microgrid. Another provision says DOD can stop contracts with BP if it is not considered a “responsible source.”

It allows government agencies to buy alternative fuels whose lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions exceed conventional fuel (i.e. tar sands) so long as less than half of that fuel comes from such sources.

Both measures will move to the Senate after the break. Their future there is uncertain.

(Source E&E News PM)

By the numbers: Chicago Climate Action Plan results

(Photo of Chicago CTA hybrid bus from Flickr and CTAbusphotographer)

Here’s what the Chicago Climate Action Plan has accomplished in the past two years:

• 15,000 dwelling units retrofitted for better energy efficiency
• 300 commercial and industrial buildings retrofitted
• 200 buildings permitted under the new energy code (since April 2009)
• 35 million gallons a day of water conserved
• 636 new car-share vehicles
• 208 new CTA hybrid buses
• 383,125 gallons of alternative fuel sold
• 204,177 tons of waste diverted from landfills

These facts were on a slide City Environment Commissioner Suzanne Malec-McKenna used in speaking to a forum on Growing Chicago’s Clean Energy Economy Tuesday.

Because it’s been really hard to get specific information following the launch of the Chicago Climate Action Plan two years ago, I thought I’d share this with those of you in Chicago who have wondered what, if anything, was happening.

The plan, which has an ambitious goal of 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (below 1990 levels) by 2020, focuses on building efficiency because that’s where most energy is wasted. The retrofits are funded in part through the Clinton Global Initiative.

I still don’t understand why this information is so hard to come by and why the city doesn’t seek more attention for its accomplishments. It seems to be a closely held secret.

Home Star rebate plan OK'd by House panel

(Photo of energy-efficiency retrofit from Flickr and the Center for Neighborhood Technology)

Home Star, a residential energy-efficiency rebate program, was approved Wednesday by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

The program, touted by the Obama Administration, would give 50% rebates of up to $1,500 for retrofitting homes to make them more energy-efficient. The rebates would come to consumers through the contractors doing the work. For an entire home upgrade, the rebate could be as much as $3,000.

Backed by the National Association for Manufacturers, the “Cash for Caulkers” bill is promoted as creating jobs and saving energy and therefore money and carbon emissions.

Democrats capped the bill at $6 billion, while Republicans said $1 billion was enough.

A similar bill is making its way through the Senate.

A related bill, Building Star, would provide rebates of up to 30% for commercial buildings.

For more on the Home Star program, see the White House Web site.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

New climate bill would pre-empt EPA and states; authors meet with industry opposition

(Photo of Texas oil rig from Flickr and photographer K. Sawyer)

The Kerry-Lieberman-Graham climate bill would pre-empt EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as state climate laws.

Those are a couple of the details that leaked out of a meeting yesterday with major industry opponents of past climate legislation.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth behind closed doors, to share details of their work-in-progress. They did so in an effort to head off multi-million-dollar ad campaigns against their bill by the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other members of the Alliance.

Other details of the bill emerging from the meeting:

• Greenhouse gas curbs across multiple sectors would aim at a 17% reduction by 2020 and 80% by mid-century. These are from a base of 2005 levels, not 1990, which Europeans and other Kyoto signers use as their base. (FYI -- U.S. emissions in 2008 were 13.6% higher than 1990.)
• The curbs would apply to plants emitting 25,000 or more tons of GHG a year.
• A “price collar” would limit a rise in the cost of carbon allowances.
• There would be new nationwide standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
• The bill would include titles, or sections, on oil refining, farms, consumer refunds, clean energy innovation, coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, and energy independence.

The trio also met with environmental groups to get their feedback.

It’s more than a little disturbing that the industries that worked with the Bush-Cheney Administration on the oil-friendly Energy Policy Act of 2005 got a special introduction to this proposal and chance to make comments and requests. (The oil companies asked that revenue from permits go to highway construction – gotta keep those automobiles running!) More likely it will flow back to consumers to pay higher energy costs and also to clean energy R&D.

The landscape is different today and industry realizes things are going to change one way or another. The EPA now has power to regulate carbon, and states are increasingly passing their own climate bills.

The three Senators expect to reveal an outline of their bill to a larger group of Senators next Tuesday, then send the information to the EPA and Congressional Budget Office for analysis. A final proposal will likely be introduced to the Senate in mid-April, Kerry said.

Meanwhile, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Byron Dorgan (R-N.D.) have pitched Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on an energy-only bill that had bi-partisan support in the Senate Energy Committee last spring. The two might be blended together.

See earlier Earthling Angst posts on that bill and the ongoing effort by Kerry-Lieberman-Graham .

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Greenwire, climateprogress.org)

Testifying to the EPA on its Big Polluters rule

(Stop CO2 stickers passed out by the Sierra Club at the EPA hearing)

Today there was an opportunity to testify at one of two EPA hearings nationwide about a proposed rule to regulate global warming emissions from the largest (25,000 tons/year) coal-fired plants and smokestack industries. Together these big plants emit more than half the greenhouse gases in the U.S. The EPA proposes to regulate them under the Clean Air Act, based on a Supreme Court decision, by requiring the "best available technology" for new plants or those making major changes or expansions.

I was among those who testified. Here is what I said:

"My name is Cynthia Linton. I am a teacher at Northwestern University and a grandmother. In 2050 I will be gone, but my grandchildren will be very much alive, and I worry they will have to deal with climate catastrophes because we haven’t taken action to cut greenhouse gases by 80% as scientists say we must.

I wholeheartedly support the Big Polluters rule and commend the EPA for doing what it was set up to do -- protect the environment. Some people forget what EPA stands for.

Large coal-fired electric plants and smokestack industries produce more than half the global warming pollution in the United States. So it makes great sense to focus on these sources of greenhouse gas emissions as a giant step toward solving the problem.

Britain recently banned new coal-powered plants that didn’t have technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. The law went into effect immediately. Not in 2013, not in 2017. But now.

We should use the Clean Air Act to begin cracking down on plants that are polluting the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases and prevent the building of new ones that worsen the problem. The rule calls for the best available technology for new plants and those making big changes. That could include using cleaner energy, becoming much more efficient, buying new equipment or, as a last resort, closing down outdated and filthy plants.

While a cap-and-trade bill languishes in the Senate and an international treaty is delayed, the EPA must take this significant step to ensure that the Earth and the people on it are safe in the future."


There was a tremendous turnout at the Rosemont Convention Center, where two long days of testimony had all slots filled days ahead of time. There were scientists, health advocates, professors, environmentalists and many other concerned citizens from throughout the Midwest. They included a professor who teaches a very popular global warming class at the U. of Chicago and has written several books, a scientist who does climate research in Antarctica and a young woman who said she was there because she is 22 and this is going to affect her future. Virtually all supported the rule.

Of course, the other national hearing was in Alexandria, Va., and likely attracted many lobbyists for big coal, big oil and industry.

Experts at a panel discussion hosted by the Sierra Club at the lunch break agreed the rule is a good first step and hopefully will be followed by regulation of existing plants. As one panelist said, "If there was no more coal, we'd find another way." They agreed that clean, renewable energy and efficiency were the way to go. They also agree Congress needs to pass a climate bill.

Clean energy is on upswing in U.S., but we need much more to avert climate change

(Photo from Flickr and state of Washington DNR.)

Thanks to state mandates, stimulus money and a slumping economy, the use of dirty coal to produce electricity has dropped slightly in the past year to 46.1% and clean renewables gained traction to 11.1%.

The Energy Information Administration predicts wind will be the source of 5% of electricity in 2020 and all renewable energy will make up 14%.

Coal use fell since last year, while the nation used slightly more natural gas, a bit less oil, and more biomass. (High gasoline prices may have been a factor for oil.) Investment helped wind power grow, while nuclear plants had less downtime, according to a study from the Lawrence Livermore Lab. Hydroelectric grew the most, according to businessgreen.com.

States rights
While Congress struggles to get a meaningful renewable electricity standard (RES), many states – including in July coal state West Virginia – have passed mandates for use of some clean energy in generating electricity. Once again the states are leading in the fight against climate change while the feds lag behind. (This happened with cars, remember?)

Economic slowdown
Total electricity generation is down 5%, year over year, thanks in part to the slowing economy. Industrial production sagged 12.5% in that period, according to the Federal Reserve.

Stimulus funds
Clean energy is expected to benefit from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) money. A revised forecast from EIA shows wind at more than twice the earlier-predicted level in 2012 because of stimulus – 201 billion kilowatt hours instead of 86B, compared with 53B in 2008. Geothermal will benefit as well, growing 16% more by 2013 than if there was no stimulus. Energy efficiency will also improve, with a weatherization program. But let’s not get too excited. The impact on CO2 emissions by 2013 will be slight – down just 1.3% from earlier predictions, because of the stimulus.

We still have a long, long way to go on clean energy. A stronger Senate climate bill would certainly help – one that phases out dirty coal plants while promoting more clean energy, which by-the-way could fill all our energy needs if the infrastructure was updated and the special interests could be silenced. I know: not going to happen.

But we can try. Everyone should contact his or her senators and ask them to work to phase out dirty coal and do more to promote clean energy.

(Sources: E&E Daily, climateprogress.org, Energy Information Administration, greenbusiness.com

Follow earthlingangst now on twitter.

U.S. joins International Renewable Energy Agency

(Photo of model Masdar City transit vehicle from Flickr and Zerochampion/Phil Clark.)

The U.S. signed on this week as one of 137 members of a new international agency. The group’s goal is to rapidly spread renewable energy and energy efficiency around the globe.

Let’s hope this group will be able to help forge agreement among developed and developing countries that will lead to curbing greenhouse gases. It seems especially important in light of India’s recent declaration it will not submit to a cap on emissions. The agency plans to coordinate with, instead of duplicating, other organizations and programs.

By joining before June 29, the U.S. was able to help determine the International Renewable Energy Agency’s interim headquarters, Abu Dhabi. The capital of the United Arab Emirates is near the planned $22 billion “zero emissions” Masdar City. UAE also has said it will cut GHG emissions overall 7% by 2020.

The new agency, IRENA, will become a repository of data and advise members on technology, regulatory frameworks, business models and financing.

The U.S. was signed up by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who said clean energy and energy efficiency are important goals of American foreign policy. Clinton was pressed to take this action by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a co-author of the American Climate Energy and Security Act, passed in the House last week.
(Source: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Sydney Harbor faces major sea level rise by 2050

(Photo of Sydney Opera House from Flickr and photographer Michael McDonough)

News Update: The iconic Opera House on Sydney Harbor will be endangered by rising sea levels as early as 2050, not to mention the homes, beaches, hotels and roads that surround the harbor. I’ve been to this beautiful spot and can only imagine what a tragedy that would be for Sydney’s people, economy and way of life. A new Australian study predicts a 2-degree C temperature increase and sea-level rise of 40 centimeters (15.74 inches) by mid-century. Each centimeter results in erosion of about one meter (3 feet-plus). The study, commissioned by New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees and conducted by the University of New South Wales, also forecasts more brushfires and erratic rainfall leading to both water shortages and flooding. The study’s findings have profound implications for urban planning in the region, not just for Sydney but other coastal communities. Rees reiterated his strong support for Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and energy efficiency. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)

Vt., Conn., Calif. top list on energy efficiency

(Image of heat-loss poster from Flickr and thingermejig)

News Update: The top states last year on investment and policies to foster energy efficiency were Vt., Conn. And Calif., according to a report card released last week by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Poorest grades went to North Dakota, Wyoming and Mississippi. Other states cited for showing leadership and innovation were Mass., Ore., Wash., N.Y., N.J., R.I. and Minn. Criteria included lowering price volatility, slowing energy demand, less need for new power plants and less risk of blackouts. Several states, including Illinois, were mentioned for making significant advances between 2006 and 2007. (Source: E&E New PM)

India’s climate plan includes renewable energy, efficiency, but no emissions target

(Photo of solar energy in rural India from Flickr and and the barefoot photographers of Tilinia)

News Update 3: India, whose economy is growing 8-9% a year, has unveiled its National Action Plan to deal with global warming. It will focus on renewable energy, efficiency and research on green technology. More specifically, the plan covers solar energy, water conservation and energy efficiency, as well as sustainable agriculture, the Himalayan ecosystem and habitat. But it does not set a target for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. India says it has a right to lift its people out of poverty, as industrial nations did while they poured GHG into the atmosphere -- and that it has low per-capita carbon emissions, at 1.2 tons, compared with the United States’ 20.6 tons (2004 data). India’s power is 60% generated by coal, with plans for new plants in the next 5 years that will generate 70,000 more megawatts. Emissions have been growing about 2-3% a year, though the country is responsible for only 4% of the world’s GHG. (Source: Thomson Reuters)

Mayors pledge to increase energy efficiency, avoid tar sands to meet climate change challenge

(Photo of Indiana refinery processing tar sands oil from Flickr and The Rainforest Network)

News Update 4: The U.S. Conference of Mayors has attacked global warming by endorsing an increase in energy efficiency, seeking guidelines to avoid high-emission unconventional fuels and phasing out plastic water bottles. At its meeting in Miami in late June, the conference:
• Unanimously supported a 30% increase in energy efficiency in new residential buildings and called for a dramatic improvement in the national model energy building code that guides state and local governments. Code officials will meet in September to finalize the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), the first update since 2006.
• Challenged high-carbon fuels from tar sands, liquid coal and oil shale, asking for guidelines and purchasing standards to help mayors understand lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from fuels. These unconventional and synthetic fuels can emit 2-5 times the greenhouse gases during extraction and production.
• Agreed to phase out bottled water in favor of the public water supply. It takes 1.5 million barrels of oil each year to manufacture the bottles, most of which end up in landfills. (Sources: Sierra Club Cool Cities, portofentry.com)

Cost of doing nothing about global warming: up to $3.6 trillion a year for losses in the U.S.

(Photo of damage from Hurricane Katrina from Flickr and and photographer SAsqrd/Steve.)

Weekly Angst: Every time I hear that it will cost too much to fight climate change and will “wreck the economy,” I say to myself (or sometimes out loud), “But what will it cost if we DON'T do anything?” So I was happy to see that Tufts University has just released a report on the cost of doing nothing, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The study determined that continuing business-as-usual in terms of greenhouse gases could end up costing the U.S. economy as much as $3.6 trillion a year by the end of the century.

They also estimated that the cost of four major climate change impacts – coastal hurricanes, real-estate damage from rising seas, increased energy costs to meet hot temperatures, and water scarcity – would rise over time and could cost $1.9 trillion annually by 2100. The breakdown for that year:
• Hurricane damages $422 billion
• Real estate losses: $360 billion
• Increased energy costs: $141 billion
• Water costs: $950 billion

Other hard-hit sectors include tourism and agriculture.

“The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate Center.

The report predicted an average temperature increase of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the U.S. in the next century and 18 degrees in Alaska, which is warming faster. Seas were predicted to rise 23 inches by 2050 and 45 inches by 2100, engulfing coastlines.

If global warming continues unchecked, the analysis found, New York City will have the climate of Las Vegas, and San Francisco will feel like New Orleans.

“Climate change is on a collision course with the U.S. economy,” warned Frank Ackerman, lead author of the study. The researchers used a new British model for figuring overall costs. They looked at economic losses, non-economic damages and the increased risk of catastrophe.

Climate disasters
And speaking of the increased risk of catastrophe, an op-ed piece in the New York Times Saturday by Charles M. Blow pointed out that we’re already experiencing more costly extreme weather disasters.

There have been four times as many weather disasters worldwide in the past 30 years as in the preceding 75, he said, citing the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The U.S. has suffered most of them.

Of the 30 costliest hurricanes in the U.S. history, 10 have occurred since 2000, according to the National Hurricane Center. The worst year, of course, was 2005 (Katrina et al), with an estimated $39 billion loss.

Report’s recommendations
But getting back to the Tufts/NRDC report – it concludes with three overriding recommendations for action:
1. Enact comprehensive mandatory limits on global warming pollution to stimulate investment and guarantee that we meet emission targets.
2. Overcome barriers to investment in energy efficiency.
3. Accelerate development and deployment of emerging clean energy technologies.

Do it and do it now. Then we can avoid most of these costs (not all, though, because GHG in the atmosphere now will be there for many years.) And, of course, it’s not just financial cost. Think about the human cost of all these disasters. It’s mind-boggling.

Download the report.

(Sources: NRDC, Greenwire, New York Times)

Strong climate bill unveiled by Rep. Markey

(Photo of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) from Flickr and photographer Keith Ivey.)

Washington Report 3: Expect U. S. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a champion of strong climate change legislation, to introduce his iCap bill (Invest in Climate Action & Protection Act) in the House Tuesday. The bill calls for:
• 85% cut in greenhouse gases by mid-century
• a cap-and-trade plan to start in 2012
• 94% of credits auctioned from the start, with 6% given to vulnerable industries like glass, steel and cement
• Auction proceeds going to tax cuts for low- and middle-income people, energy technology research, energy efficiency, adaptation to climate change
• A carrot-and-stick approach to trade with other nations, with the carrot being access to billions for clean technology and forestation for those with similarly strong climate plans and the stick an added cost in the form of having to buy carbon credits if they want to export carbon-intensive products to us
• Overriding the EPA decision to deny California (and many other states) the ability to curb tailpipe emissions
• New EPA regulations for coal mines, landfills, large animal feeding operations and other emitters of greenhouse gases not otherwise covered in the bill.
This is a bill environmentalists have to love. It shows many of the Senate bill’s shortcomings. (Source: ClimateWire)

1-minute Angst: high-speed trains

Summary for Feb. 25-29

Could high-speed trains work in the U.S. or is it too big? Railroad man Craig Burroughs says at 250 mph we could get from Chicago to LA in less than 10 hours. High-speed freight trains would take lots of heavy trucks off the roads, making highway expansion unnecessary and dramatically reducing expensive maintenance of truck-damaged roads.

House OKs renewable-energy tax credits, again, but Senate could balk at money coming from Big Oil. And White House threatens to veto. One hope: add it to budget reconciliation bill … McCain gets zero from League of Conservation Voters for 2007 non-votes.

Freight trains compete with trucks to carry Asian imports from ports, getting more investment … efficiency best way to cut energy demand, study says … nuke developers go to South despite excess capacity there.

Water supply for Southern California, in Lake Mead, could be gone by 2021, because of drought and reduced snowpack … Chile suffers worst drought in decades, while ocean water must be pumped to Andes.

For full text, see below.

House OKs renewable energy tax credits

(Photo of windfarm from Flickr and photographer Alessandro Ronchi)

Congressional Round-up: The House voted 236-182 Wednesday to approve renewable energy tax credit extensions, funding them by eliminating tax breaks for 5 big oil companies. This is the fourth time they approved such a bill in the past year. Now comes the hard part. A similar bill has failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. That is likely again, though one tactic under discussion is to try to get some of the package included in the final budget reconciliation bill. The extensions are needed because current ones expire at the end of 2008, and already investment in renewables is slowing down. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned that a failure to extend the credits could cost the country 116,000 jobs. The Senate could bring up the bill as soon as next week. The House bill (H.R. 5351) provides:
• A 3-year extension on investment credits for wind, geothermal and other renewables.
• An 8-year extension of incentives for commercial solar energy and 6 years for residential, doubling the top credit for homeowners to $4,000.
• Incentives for plug-in hybrids, energy efficiency and installation of pumps for fuel with 85% ethanol.
The GOP and White House object to rescinding $13.6 billion in tax cuts for integrated oil companies. They say it will thwart exploration and raise prices for consumers. Dems said with oil over $100 a barrel, the 5 companies affected are making record profits and will lose less than 2% of those profits in the next 10 years. Call your Senators to approve this bill at (202)224-3121. Also, check to see how your Rep voted. (Sources: Washington Post, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Sierra Club)

McCain nets zero on environment from Conservation Voters
Many see Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee for president, as pro-environment. The League of Conservation Voters disagrees. McCain scored the lowest possible grade, a zero, on LCV’s 2007 Scorecard. Democratic contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) came in at 73, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at 67. McCain, who introduced global warming legislation back before it was popular, has twice failed to show up for a vote on renewable tax credit extensions, where his vote could have made the difference. LCV says it’s a pattern and he missed all critical environmental votes last year. His lifetime score is 24. To see how your elected representatives scored, check the LCV scorecard. (Sources: Sierra Club, LCV)

Plan would rob trains to fund highways

Congressional round-up: Two Senators have objected to a Bush Administration plan to “borrow” money from mass transit to fund a deficit in the Transportation Department’s highway fund. Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said they would not support the plan. The highway program has a shortfall of $3.2 billion, while mass transit is $4.4 billion in the black. One has to wonder why, when mass transit gets only 20% the money highways do, they aren’t spending that money on the transportation that can cut greenhouse gas emissions? Bush’s new budget seeks $42.7B for highways and just $8.4B for mass transit. (Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM) (Photo courtesy of Flickr and MarkyBon.)

Stimulus bill with clean-energy tax credits misses by 1 vote
A Senate vote to include energy tax-credit extensions in the economic stimulus package failed by 1 vote Wednesday night. Senators are trying to preserve the credits, which expire by year’s end, to maintain the momentum of clean-energy investment. All Democrats voted to consider the bill, as did Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Arlen Specter (Pa.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.). Pesidential candidate John McCain (R-Ariz.) did not show up. 5 GOP Senators who had signed a letter supporting extension of the tax credits voted to oppose the bill. They were John Sununu (N.H.), Wayne Allard (Colo.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), John Thune (S.D.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). This was the third time in 7 month Republican leadership blocked clean-energy tax incentives. The $5.7 billion package included:
* a 1-year extension of the production tax credit
* solar, fuel cell and microturbine investment credits
* high-efficiency appliance credits
* energy efficiency credits for new homes and home retrofits
* energy efficiency credits for commercial buildings.
Senate leadership will continue trying to extend the tax credits. This is a top priority for many Senators and for environmental groups. A tax bill including the credit extensions passed the House but failed in the Senate in December. (Sources: Sierra Club, E&E Daily, Grist)
For more on the tax credits, see a guest post on Grist by Josh Dorner of the Sierra Club.