Obama and Dem leaders will push next week to firm up a climate strategy; but will a price on carbon be part of it?

Will there be a price on carbon? That seems to be the most important question, but it's certainly not the only one about upcoming climate legislation in the Senate.

As Obama invites a bi-partisan group of Senators to share ideas at the White House next week, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reconvenes the Democratic caucus to discuss proposals presented in a one-hour closed-door meeting last week, cap and trade (or some other price on carbon) seems the most controversial piece of the puzzle.

How to get to 60
Republicans voted in lockstep for the Murkowski resolution to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (and were joined by 6 Democrats).

So it seems likely they will hold together to vote “no” on cap and trade, or any legislation that’s tough on fossil fuels. With elections close at hand they may just say “no” to block Obama.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked for months with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has deserted his friends in the enemy camp and is now backing fellow Republican Richard Lugar’s (Ind.) bill. So that might have a chance to get to the 60 votes needed. But it’s very weak, focusing on energy efficiency, nuclear power and retiring a few of the oldest, dirtiest coal-powered plants.

Another possibility for Republican support is the Cantwell-Collins “cap and dividend bill.” GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Me.) is one of the sponsors and might bring along a couple of fellow New Englanders. It would return 75% of revenues from allowances to the people. But anything with “cap” seems to be politically toxic.

And we certainly can’t depend on oil-patch Democrats, who we’ve seen are still clamoring for increased offshore drilling. In fact, without immediate state revenue-sharing of offshore drilling, Mary Landieu (D-La.) says she’ll work to stop a bill. And then there are coal-state Dems like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). He's unlikely to vote for anything that hurts his state’s economy.

The benefits of Kerry-Lieberman
Although it’s not all we might wish, Kerry-Lieberman’s American Power Act, which is built on cap-and-trade (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), seems by far the best Senate bill out there. It would actually DO something and aims for an 83% cut in GHG by 2050. An EPA analysis puts the cost per family at less than a postage stamp a day. A Peterson Institute study says it will unleash 200,000 new jobs a year 2011-2020. And a ClimateWorks Foundation study ups the jobs to half a million a year until 2030.

Rationally, this is the best bill hands down. And it has the support of many big businesses, like GE, Honeywell and Dow Chemical. But who’s rational? Certainly not the Senate a few months before midterm elections.

So conventional wisdom is that Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) bill that passed the Energy Committee last year and would establish a renewable electricity standard, will be the platform to which other items would be attached. Kerry-Lieberman could be introduced as an amendment (though they are still fighting to take the lead) -- and will probably fail to get 60 votes.

Possible health reform redux
Meanwhile the idea is out there that the strategy might be to pass the best bill possible, then go to reconciliation with the House, which you may have forgotten passed a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill last year. And they could work cap-and-trade into the final result. The votes might be there for passage of such a final bill in the lame-duck session. Especially if majority rules.

That would be cool. But we’ll have to see how it plays out.

Getting anything through the Senate will be hard because this bill will also contain response to the oil spill, like greatly increasing the oil tax for the Spill Response Trust Fund, eliminating the liability cap of $75 million and tightening safety regulations. While most of the country will be all for that, some oil-state Senators will no doubt tout the industry line.

Senators everywhere need to hear from the public, which is way ahead of them on this one.

Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell your Senators you want a comprehensive climate bill with a price on carbon passed this year.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM, ClimateWire, The Hill)

Offshore drilling still in climate bill, but with restrictions

The word is out about the contents of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill, due for release at a 1:30 p.m. (EDT) news conference Wednesday. The Hill has links to a summary of the new draft on its Web site.

Offshore drilling is still in it but there are protections:
• If a state wants to drill within 75 feet of shore, nearby states that could be impacted by a spill can veto it.
• Safety regulations will be added later, pending the 30-day review by the Interior Department.

What's in the bill
Other key elements of the bill, the American Power Act, include:
• Cutting greenhouse gas emissions 17% (below 2005 levels) by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.
• Pre-emption of states or regions having their own carbon market, but allowing them to restrict GHG.
• Pre-emption of EPA regulation over GHG from new plants but not over existing plants.
• $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear energy
• A price on carbon, with a floor of $12 a ton, to rise 3% a year and a ceiling of $25, to rise 5% a year.
• 37.5% revenue-sharing for states that allow drilling off their shores.
• Two-thirds of utility auction revenue (after paying down the deficit) returned to customers to help pay rising utility costs, referred to by some as cap-and-dividend.
• $7B a year for transportation infrastructure and efficiency.
• Investment in electric vehicles and tax incentives to switch heavy vehicles to natural gas.
• Expansion of the clean energy tax credit by $5B.
• Fuel producers and importers will pay a price for allowances, which they will not be able to trade.
• $2B for coal plants that capture and store carbon.

What happens next
After release, the bill is expected to go to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who will merge it with some other pieces to craft a bill he thinks can get 60 votes. The Energy Committee bill, which passes committee last year, will be one of those pieces. It included a renewable electricity standard of 15%, efficiency measures and an overhaul of federal financing for clean energy projects. It also included allowances for wider oil and gas leasing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which isn’t likely to fly.

Progressives are hoping the bill will move in their direction as it is changed, to woo those on the left opposed to more offshore drilling.

Debate is expected in June or July.

(Sources: The Hill, Climate Progress , Sierra Club, the Washington Post Carbon blog, Greenwire)

Why are Kerry, Lieberman unveiling climate bill Wednesday?

NOAA map of spill from Flickr and SkyTruth .)

The Gulf oil disaster has spilled over into the climate bill debate. So why are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) going to release their climate and energy bill at a press conference next Wednesday? The environment for it seems pretty muddy.

Their third partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has pulled out as a key sponsor.

Several coastal-state Democrats have said no way will they support a bill that expands offshore drilling.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have hardened their position favoring offshore drilling, despite the spill. The GOP, Graham included, is saying chill ‘til we know more about the cause of the spill.

In short, Kerry and Lieberman have lost supporters rather than gain them, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. And they didn’t have 60 votes to begin with.

So why launch this bill now? And how can they placate those on the left – like the two Senators from New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida – to bring them back into the fold? And what about Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who wants more protection for Mid-Atlantic states.

Changes to the bill
We know they are changing the section on offshore drilling. Originally they allowed states to veto drilling within 75 miles of their shores and offered revenue-sharing as an enticement to say yes.

Now, they’ll likely give adjacent states a veto too, and maybe move the boundary out. For sure they will strengthen safety requirements. Few are likely to argue with that.

If they’re smart they’ll exempt New Jersey and Florida, and maybe Maryland.

But will that do it?

Nothing to lose
They’re only unveiling their proposal, not putting it up for a vote. They’ve gotten as far as they can keeping it under wraps. Some fence-sitters have said they want to see what’s in it. Speculation is they’re hoping eventually to pick up a few Republican votes from New Englanders like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Mass. and Judd Gregg of N.H., or George LeMieux of Fla. if the public raises a ruckus.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will not bring the bill to the floor for a vote unless he has 60 votes.

Reid may be banking on public sentiment fueled by the Gulf disaster tipping a few votes in their favor. He really has nothing to lose and reportedly was putting pressure on the sponsors to get the bill out there for others to see.

Kerry’s hoping some will be swayed by a growing coalition of support from business, faith communities, national security and environmental groups. I wonder about the 3 big oil companies that were ready to support it, if the bill is made much stricter about offshore drilling.

Presumably BP won’t be at the press conference unveiling the bill. Neither will Graham – though in the end they may be able to get his vote, if they don’t entirely ax the offshore drilling part.

This won’t be the final bill. There will be discussions and wheeling and dealing and amendments once it’s out in the open.

The impact of The Spill
A lot may depend on what happens with the spill. If it can’t be stopped and tars the coasts of many states, if there are constant photos of birds and wildlife covered with oil and people who have lost their livelihood, some drilling advocates may be forced to come around. It is an election year, remember.

And if the leak can be is stopped soon (don’t hold your breath), then perhaps those on the left will decide drilling isn’t so bad after all and will take the best they can get.

Many agree the current energy situation is untenable – whether they believe in global warming or not. The spill reminds us of that every day.

And those who believe strongly in climate change may, in the end, be unwilling to give up on a bill that caps carbon emissions and advances clean energy, even if it does open the door to limited new drilling offshore.

It’s probably worth a try.

(Sources include Greenwire, E&E News PM, Agence-France Presse via grist.org, CNN, E2Wire)

The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010: If a wind turbine had exploded we wouldn't be facing this mess

(Photo of oil slick taken Saturday from Flickr and SkyTruth)

It’s ironic that approval for the Cape Wind Project came the same week at the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010.

It’s taken 9 years to get approval for the 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, where the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) factor kept blocking it. The turbines, which will be 5-14 miles away from land, will reportedly look smaller than a quarter in your hand.

And if one of those falls over or explodes, all we’ll get is what comic Stephen Colbert deemed “a catastrophic wind spill.”

With the BP oil rig that self-destroyed in the Gulf 12 days ago, we’re getting inestimable damage to coastal regions of three or four states, as well as a major portion of the fishing industry and other wildlife. This rig was about 40 miles from shore and the leak is a mile deep, making repair very, very difficult. An oil slick, now the size of Puerto Rico, is spreading toward Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama – the same ill-fated states that had to endure Hurricane Katrina – and probably to the panhandle of Florida.

If the spill continues, as seems inevitable, it could travel down the west coast of Florida to the Keys and then be carried by the Gulf Stream up the east coast, tarring beaches and wildlife and ruining fishing and tourism.

Political fallout
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (and Independent candidate for Senator) said this weekend there should be no new offshore drilling.

Christ, who flew over the slick and called it “frightening,” told Meet the Press’s David Gregory he would be for climate change legislation if he was in the Senate.

Which begs the question, what impact will the spill have on passing a climate bill? The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman bill includes expanded offshore drilling to placate Republicans, though some Democrats clearly didn’t like that part. Now they REALLY don’t like it.

As for the president, he ordered there be no new drilling leases unless there are new safety measures to avoid a repeat of the current calamity.

The legacy of Santa Barbara
Never underestimate the impact of a big oil spill on public opinion. The Santa Barbara spill of 1969 is credited with being the impetus for the environmental movement. Anti-drilling fever can spread as relentlessly as the oil slick itself.

California, though it still has 27 drilling platforms off its southern and central coast, has long had a moratorium on any new drilling there. A request to expand one drilling project, which already had opposition, will likely never get off the ground now.

You’ll note California was not included in President Obama’s loosening of offshore drilling restrictions. Nor is it in the climate bill.

And U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) told AP the Gulf spill “marks a turning point in our national discussion on new offshore oil drilling.”

People have a very long memory and strong feelings when their property is affected.

Oil versus wind
As we wait for something to stem the flow of the current disaster, which could take up to three months if all else fails and their only remedy is to drill a relief hole, let’s give a lot more thought to what would have happened if a wind turbine had exploded in the gulf. We’d hardly have noticed.

There are those who say energy independence depends on offshore drilling here. It’s either our oil or foreign oil. No it’s not. It’s either oil or clean sources like wind, solar and hydropower.

And, by the way, let’s think long and hard about a nuclear resurgnce. What if that had been a nuclear reactor?

(Sources include: NBC’s Meet the Press, Associated Press via Mother Nature Network, Christian Science Monitor, dailykos.com)

Boxer's power play: panel votes with GOP MIA -- but we don't have a climate bill yet

(Photo of mountain-top-removal coal mine from Flickr and Sierra Club


While the nation was fixated on whether the House would pass a health reform bill last week, a little drama of its own was playing out in Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Work committee.

The week started out with the committee’s 7 GOP members boycotting markup of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, otherwise known as the Kerry-Boxer bill, saying they needed yet more economic analysis by the EPA. As the boycott went into its third day, Boxer, backed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “Enough” and passed the bill, without any GOP amendments or votes. The Democrat-only vote was 11-1 (guess who? Max Baucus). Republicans were outraged. Too bad.

Boxer’s action re-emphasizes the importance of the thin Democratic majority in the Senate. If control swings back to Republicans, chairmanship of that committee will return to climate change denier and filibusterer James Inhofe (R-Okla.). (As an aside, Boxer is being challenged by Republican Carly Fiorina in 2010 and could use your help.)

Now what?
So what happens next? The House already passed a bill, HR 2454, in June, lest we forget. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to wrestle with both health and climate. And health is likely to get priority.

There’s plenty more work to do on a Senate climate bill, combining it with a more conservative energy bill (S 1462) from John Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) Energy and Natural Resources committee and giving others a chance to pile on: Agriculture, Foreign Relations and Finance. Despite the strong showing in committee, Democrats are divided on the plan. So leaders are looking for some Republican support.

Kerry is working with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to forge a bill that can get 60 votes. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has joined the duo. He championed climate legislation in the past, but who knows what he’ll do now.

It looks like more offshore drilling and nuclear power will have to be part of the trade-off. And there’s talk about lowering the cap on greenhouse gases to 17% (from 2005 levels) like the House-passed bill, rather than Kerry-Boxer’s 20% -- which already was far too modest, compared with what many other countries are doing. Both House and Senate bills give away most of the allowances for cap-and-trade at the start, making things easier on the polluters.

The importance of coal
The coal states are expected to hold major sway politically, so carbon capture and sequestration is likely to be a big item in any bill that can pass – as well as generous allowances to use until CCS is operational in about a decade.

A Columbia University study showed coal the No. 2 reason for opposition to climate legislation, after party affiliation (GOP). More than 30 states, from West Virginia to Montana, rely heavily on coal, which powers half the nation’s electricity. Some mine it, some transport it and most depend heavily on it for electric power.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is in a bind because his state is among the top 10 producers of coal and relies almost entirely on it for electricity. Sens. John Rockefeller and Robert Byrd’s (D-W.Va.) state is also both a producer and heavy consumer of coal. North Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming and Kentucky are all closely tied to coal.

As Kerry, Graham and Lieberman try to work their magic to pull 60 votes out of the air, agriculture and other interests will weigh in. What the Senate comes up with and when isn’t exactly what progressives had hoped for. We’ll no doubt miss the deadline for international negotiations in Copenhagen a month from now, reducing America’s influence there. And the final bill will be a patchwork that won’t come close to what scientists (and other countries) say is necessary to curb global warming. The best that can be said is it would be a start.

(Sources: ClimateWire, washingtonpost.com, E&E Daily, E&E News PM))

Will Kerry-Graham pact weaken climate bill?

(Photo of Capitol lost in smoke from Flickr and Capitol Climate Action)

Is the Kerry-Graham alliance a “game changer” in the hunt for 60 votes to pass a climate bill, or does it mean a watered-down bill that will have little impact on climate change?

In case you missed it, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, touted cap-and-trade along with more nuclear power, offshore drilling and “low-carbon coal,” as if there is such a thing.

I know we may have to toss a bone to the fence-sitters to get anything passed, but do we have to give them the whole cow?

I’m conflicted about nuclear power in the climate change debate. The fact that I’ve lived with it uneventfully in Illinois for decades may have something to do with it. But mainly, it doesn’t emit CO2. So I see it as the lesser of evils, compared with fossil fuels.

I know there are fearsome environmental concerns. But so are there with coal (ash, air and water pollutants, mountain-top removal) and with off-shore drilling (spills endangering coasts and wildlife). And sequestered CO2 from coal, if it’s feasible, has the risk of bubbling up and killing people.

Natural gas isn’t half bad (literally – it produces 50% of the CO2 in coal) and so is preferable among the fossil fuels.

Future is solar and wind
But we must keep our eye on the future, which is wind and solar (and things not yet in play). We need to get there as quickly as possible.

Nuclear should not be classified as a “renewable energy” as some moderates Dems want, and included in a renewable electricity standard (RES). If the final bill tosses a bone to the oil patch and coal interests to get passed, it should be insignificant compared with curbs on GHG, efficiency and incentives for true renewable energy.

Why do we need more oil anyway, if demand in the industrialize world peaked 4 years ago, as a research report revealed this week? The oil companies want to sell it to developing countries where the need is growing. But that means the U.S. public won’t benefit, just the multinational oil firms. Besides, Boxer notes, oil companies have leases they aren’t even using.

And lest we forget, a 2006 law already expanded drilling off 4 gulf states.

Hearings to begin
Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, begins hearings Oct. 27 on the Kerry-Boxer bill (not to be confused with the more conservative Kerry-Graham non-bill). That bill can probably pass out of committee with no drilling provision because it is heavily Democrat. We need to let Sen. Kerry know we much prefer Kerry-Boxer. He seems to have abandoned it already.

One bone of contention will be the so-called “border tax” – a tariff on imported items made under less stringent environmental conditions. Several Midwest senators, led by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), are intent on protecting the manufacturing base in their states, and jobs. That’s a bloc of about 10 votes, Brown says. He also wants help for manufacturers to retool, as the House bill has.

On the opposite side of the trade issue is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who says he won’t accept a bill with a border-tax.

This battle is far from over. It's just beginning.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire, E&E New PM)

Today is Blog Action Day for climate change.

Big Oil wins this round; offshore ban is gone

(Photo of offshore oil platform from Flickr and photographer absolutwade/Beau Wade)

Washington Report: Big Oil has won, at least for now. After spending millions on lobbying, and taking advantage of the rise in gas prices to win over two powerful advocates, President Bush and John McCain, it has two-thirds of the country believing we need to drill offshore – and drill now. Not to mention those omnipresent American Petroleum Institute ads of an annoying woman of indeterminate age in a black pantsuit who strides across the U.S. map as if she owns it, telling us Congress has put most of the oil reserves in the U.S. off bounds. Well, they aren’t anymore. For the first time in 26 years, Congress has let the moratorium on offshore drilling expire. Starting Oct. 1 oil rigs technically could spring up just 3 miles offshore, except within 150 miles of Florida’s Gulf Coast, which was placed off-limits by a 2006 law. Also gone is the ban on oil shale in the West. It’s a huge step backward for the environment and a win for fossil fuels. Not satisfied, some lawmakers continue to push their drilling agendas. Republicans want to give the states a portion of the royalties (which some gulf states had and lost) and speed up leasing and permitting. Democrats from Massachusetts want to make sure to protect the Georges Bank fishing grounds (“shellfish, not Shell Oil”) and national marine sanctuaries from drilling. A new president and Congress could reinstate the ban. (E&E News PM)

‘Gang of 10’ bill dead for now; tax credit extensions likely for renewable energy

(Photo of wind farm from Flickr and photographer lamusa/Jennifer)

Washington Report: The Gang of 10 bipartisan Senate energy package is over, at least until after the election. The 20 supporters apparently couldn’t reach agreement and pulled the bill Friday. Pressure to expand offshore drilling after a more generous Democrat bill passed the House, as well as a fast-tracked bipartisan bill to extend renewable energy tax credits contributed to the decision. The financial crisis also promised to bump an energy debate as a top priority. But it was unclear Friday whether the offshore drilling ban would be allowed to expire Sept. 30 or would be extended in a resolution to continue government spending till year’s end. Meanwhile the Finance Committee’s bill on tax credit extensions is likely to come up next week. That bill would, among other things:
• Extend production tax credits for wind 1 year.
• Extend investment tax credits for solar energy 8 years.
• Extend credits for energy efficient buildings for 1 year.
• Add credits for small residential wind turbines and geothermal pumps.
• Add credits for new advanced coal and coal gasification, and to industry for capture and storage of CO2
• Add consumer credits for plug-in vehicles
• Limit but not repeal tax breaks for oil companies.
A coalition of industry and environmentalists warned Thursday that failure to extend renewable tax credits could cost 100,000 jobs and billions in investments. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E PM, E&E Daily)

House approves energy bill with off-shore drilling, tax credit extensions for renewables, RES

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer seansie/Sean Hayford O'Leary)

Washington Report: The House on Tuesday voted 236-89 to pass a comprehensive energy package that allowed for more off-shore drilling but at the same time rolled back oil tax breaks to fund renewable energy and efficiency. HR 6899 would:
• Allow drilling more than 100 miles of both coasts and, if states said OK, drilling 50 miles off their shore; maintained the ban on drilling within 125 of the west coast of Florida; protected Georges Bank fishing grounds off New England from drilling.
• Create a renewable electricity standard (RES) mandating 15% of electric power come from renewable sources by 2020, though one-fourth of the mandate could be met with efficiency.
• Roll back $18 billion in oil tax breaks to fund renewable energy and conservation.
• Extend investment tax credits for solar energy 8 years, production tax credits for wind 1 year, and other renewables like geothermal and wave energy 3 years.
• Make $1 billion in tax credits available for coal plants that use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
• Lift a moratorium on oil shale leasing in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, though the states must pass laws to permit it.

The politics behind the bill
Environmental groups, while liking the renewable provisions, objected to the bill’s offshore drilling, oil shale and CCS provisions. Democrats said they backed down on offshore drilling because public opinion favors it and they wanted to give cover to moderate Dems in tough re-election fights. They also noted the offshore drilling ban expires at the end of September, which would permit drilling as close as 3 miles offshore if Congress doesn’t act. They added CCS and oil shale at the last minute to garner more support. GOP leaders, who wanted much broader offshore drilling, complained they had no input into the bill and said it would not add to domestic oil production because states would have no financial incentive to allow drilling off their shores. The White House threatened to veto the bill, based on the rollback of oil tax breaks and the RES. (Sources: Congressional Quarterly, E&E Daily,
thedailygreen.com)

House Dems back down on offshore drilling

(Photo of drilling platform off Santa Barbara that caused big spill in 1969 from Flickr and photographer Doc Searls)

Washington Report: Facing the threat that the ban on offshore drilling will be allowed to expire Sept. 30, House Democrats are expanding the drilling provision in their new energy package to include drilling 100 miles offshore and as close as 50 miles off the east and west coasts if states want it. Their ace in the hole is that they haven’t included royalties for the states, which makes it less likely states will opt in. The plan maintains a ban within 125 miles of Florida’s gulf coast until 2022. Also, in an effort to bring coal-state reps onboard, the plan now would spend $10 billion over 10 years on carbon capture and storage technology. A third new item is more vehicles using natural gas as fuel. The package also includes:
• A renewable electricity standard (RES) of 15% by 2020, one-fourth of which can be met with efficiency
• Extension of tax credits for renewable energy and efficiency
• Pressure on oil companies to drill where they have existing leases, such as Alaska
• Repeal of Big Oil tax breaks and royalty subsidies
• Release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
• More money for public transit

The package is expected to go to the Rules Committee Monday and be voted on as early as Tuesday. The GOP has its own bill – The American Energy Bill – which calls for much wider offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and more use of oil shale and nuclear plants, as well as expanded renewables and efficiency.

In the Senate, the “Gang of 10” bill picked up 4 more sponsors this week: Susan Collins (R-Me.), Amy Kobluchar (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), doubling the original 10. That bill is also expected to come up next week, along with two alternatives. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he'd like to vote first on the tax credit extensions before bringing up broader bills. For more on the “Gang of 10” and background on the House bill, see EarthlingAngst’s Sept. 5 post. There is an urgency to pass something before the end of the month, when the offshore moratorium expires, allowing drilling within 3 miles of shore. With elections at hand and public sentiment buying the argument that drilling is the answer, it’s clear that science is not winning out this time. (Source: E&E Daily)


•

House Dems have new energy bill, adding renewable electricity standard and tax credits

(Photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Flickr and Talk Radio News Service)

Washington Report: Rallying back after being caught off-guard on offshore drilling, Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership plans to bring a new energy package to the floor when Congress returns next week. Emphasizing renewable energy, green jobs and efficiency, the Democratic package will include some expansion of offshore drilling, because it has become so popular with the public. But most of the emphasis will be on renewables. One important element will be the oft-tried extension of renewable tax credits, due to expire the end of the year. Large wind and solar projects are at risk because of the delay in extending the credits, held up by Republicans in the Senate (with John McCain refusing to vote many times, including once when a yes vote from him would have done the trick). While the new House bill is a work in progress, it is expected to include:
• A renewable electricity standard (RES), which has passed the House but not in the Senate.
• An energy efficiency standard
• Repeal of big oil tax breaks
• Help for mass transit
• Some relaxation of the off-shore drilling ban, with safeguards
• Extension of renewable and efficiency tax credits
Republicans are already calling the bill a gimmick and say the RES (which would mandate a percentage of electricity come from renewable sources) is a deal-breaker. A vote could take place as early as Sept. 12.

And in the Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he will call for a vote on the “Gang of 10” bipartisan energy bill soon after Congress reconvenes. Over the August break, six more Senators signed on – Republicans John Warner (Va.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Dems Tim Johnson (N.D.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Tom Carper (Del.) Their proposal, which environmentalists says is too reliant on old fossil fuels, would:
• Allow off-shore drilling up to 50 miles off Florida in the Gulf of Mexico
• Allow the Carolinas, Georgia and Virginia to decide if they want drilling 50 miles from their shore and giving them some of the royalties.
• Repeal billions in tax breaks for oil companies to help fund renewable energy and conservation
• Set a goal to wean 85% of autos off oil-based fuels in 20 years
• Extend renewable and efficiency tax credits until 2012
• Give tax credits for extremely efficient vehicles
• Fund next-generation biofuels and loan guarantees for coal-to-liquid plants that can capture carbon dioxide.

How they differ
The Senate “Gang of 10” proposal (details still unknown) would not include a renewable energy standard (RES) or energy efficiency standard. The House proposal (also few details) would include no coal-to-liquid provision. Presumably the Senate proposal will do less for renewables than the House package and will allow more offshore drilling. Once the details are known it will be more clear what the differences are. Original sponsors of the “Gang of 10” proposal are all pro-drilling. They are Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Saxby (R-Ga.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

The White House view
A spokeswoman for President Bush said Friday he wants Congress to give him a "clean" energy bill (not to be confused with "clean energy" bill) that expands offshore drilling, removes limits on oil shale leasing and extends the renewable tax credits. Apparently his idea of a "clean" energy bill is one that doesn't have all that other stuff in it.

The urgency
If agreement isn’t reached soon, renewable tax credits will expire, putting a stop to many wind and solar projects. Also the moratorium on offshore drilling will die if it’s not renewed by Congress. But more important, going into this election season, is that the voters are worried about gas prices and want to see some action taken. Will Republicans be able to win out with their “drill now” mantra? Or will Democrats prevail with an emphasis on renewable energy and green jobs? Both claim their plans will further energy independence. The maneuvering will be interesting – and disturbing – to watch. Whatever they do won’t help gas prices and – more important – won't do as much as is needed to fight against global warming.

How you can help
Join the Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility and other groups Tuesday, Sept. 9 for National Call-in Day. Call your senators and representatives (Congressional switchboard is 212-224-3121) and tell them the emphasis should be on renewable energy, efficiency and green jobs, not offshore drilling and more fossil fuels. Also write a Letter to the Editor to that effect. Help shape the debate.

(Sources: Greenwire, E&E PM, Sierra Club)

Sarah Palin's views on Big Oil and the environment are a threat to all earthlings

(Couldn't resist this cartoon-photo on Flickr from earthpro/harold)

Weekly Angst: EarthlingAngst is back early from vacation because her angst level has gone way up over the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the GOP vice presidential candidate. Just when we were beginning to think things would have to get better for global warming with the next administration – whoever won – comes a candidate whose views on the environment are worse than George Bush’s.

Sarah Palin:
• Is skeptical that global warming is the result of human activities.
• Questions the science behind predictions of Arctic ice melt.
• Fought designation of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and now has filed suit against the Interior Department to de-list it.
• Favors drilling in ANWR and has tried to persuade Sen. McCain to take the same position, inviting him to visit the area.
• Favors off-shore drilling.
• Opposed a state initiative to stop metal mining pollution of streams where salmon spawn – the measure failed last week.
• Approves of shooting wolves and bears from airplanes.
• Opposes a federal windfall profit tax on oil, though she taxes them at the state level.

Alaska loves oil
Palin “embodies a distinctly Alaskan perspective” on oil and gas, which provides 85-90% of the state’s budget, according The Daily Green, a Hearst Web site.

Environmental groups were quick to pan the choice of Palin as McCain’s running mate. She’s a candidate who repeats Big Oil’s talking points, said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

She would continue the destructive Bush policies and is to the right of Bush on the polar bear, said the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

With her support for drilling, she would continue the failed policies of Bush-Cheney and their Big Oil friends, League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said.

EarthlingAngst shudders at the thought that she could be a heartbeat away from a president in his 70s, or even have a strong influence on him. And her main support base is the extreme right social conservatives. (Her other views, in case you missed them, include overturning Roe v. Wade and teaching creationism in school alongside evolution.)

Biden’s environmental record
Is Democrat V.P. candidate Joe Biden better? Yes.

He has a lifetime environmental score of 83% with the League of Conservation Voters. According to LCV, he has been a leader on global warming issues, chairing Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the national security implications of climate change and co-authoring a resolution telling President Bush to negotiate seriously on the international level for a post-Kyoto agreement. He has sponsored bills to decrease reliance on foreign oil and to increase fuel economy in cars. He’s against drilling in ANWR and voted to reduce oil usage 40% by 2025.

(Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, thedailygreen.com, League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Sierra Club.)

Offshore drilling battle could lead to government shutdown Oct. 1

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer seansie/Sean Hayford O'Leary)

Washington Report: Republicans and Democrats may be headed for a showdown in Congress that could shut down government, halting paychecks and benefits and causing layoffs. Unable to reach agreement on an energy bill, Dems may add the yearly extension of the offshore drilling moratorium to a short-term government funding bill that will be needed at the end of September, which 3 dozen GOP senators have vowed to “fight vigorously.” Offshore drilling is an issue Republicans think could work for them politically if Dems continue to oppose it. Both parties’ leaders have agreed to an Energy Summit when Congress returns Sept. 8, but details have yet to be worked out. Democrats’ answer to high gas prices is release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a requirement that oil companies drill on the 68 million acres they have under lease before bidding on new leases, and curbs on energy futures speculation. They also want repeal of oil tax breaks, a renewable energy standard of 15% by 2020 and extension of renewable tax credits. The Republicans’ fossil-fuel-heavy plan calls for repealing the offshore drilling moratorium on the east and west coasts, drilling in ANWR, oil shale extraction in the Rockies, increased incentives for nuclear energy, extension of credits for wind, solar and hydrogen, new tax breaks for coal-to-liquid, tax breaks for electric cars and speeding up permits for oil refineries. “The Gang of 10,” a bipartisan group of senators, came up with a compromise bill just before the August break, which might have a chance of breaking gridlock, so long as one side doesn’t see a political advantage in stalling. But it’s going to be hard to get agreement when the parties are so far apart, and the petroleum industry opposes it. Main provisions include:
• Drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
• Drilling offshore from 4 Southeast states – Virginia, Georgia, North and South Carolina – if the states agree
• Repeal of billions in oil company tax breaks
• Extension of tax credits on renewable energy sources like wind and solar
• New loan guarantees for coal-to-liquid
• Speeding of permits for nuclear plants
• Billions for R&D for advanced biofuels and batteries
To read more see the Grist blog. (Souces: Greenwire, San Francisco Chronicle)

'Gang of 10' Senate proposal gets Obama backing

(Photo of offshore drilling from Flickr and photographer absolutwade/Beau Wade)

Washington Report 1: The Senate “Gang of 10” drew support from Barack Obama Friday for a bipartisan compromise energy package that would relax restrictions on some offshore drilling, while repealing some tax breaks on the oil industry and funding renewable energy and conservation. Obama had previously opposed more offshore drilling but said he favored some of the other provisions in the bill and compromise was needed to get anything passed. The proposal, led by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) was the result of many meetings to craft a bill that would satisfy voters upset over high gas prices and reduce dependence of foreign oil. It will likely come to the floor after the August break. It would:
• Reduce the no-drilling area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to 50 miles off the Florida coast from 150 miles offshore (both Florida senators strongly objected).
• Allow drilling offshore from four Southeastern states -- Virginia, Georgia, North and South Carolina -- if the states agree, and share some revenue with the states.
• Repeal tax breaks worth $30 billion for oil companies, which made record profits this quarter (see below).
• Extend renewable energy tax credits, due to expire this year, until 2012, to encourage development of wind, solar and other renewable sources.
• Give incentives to coal-to-liquid plants that can capture and store carbon.
• Fund R&D on advanced batteries and help automakers retool.
• Develop and demonstrate next-generation biofuels.
• Give tax credits for highly efficient cars and those that use non-petroleum fuels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave the proposal luke-warm praise as a starting point for some agreement on energy. The American Petroleum Institute opposed the repeal of some oil tax credits (calling it "tax increases), saying it would discourage domestic drilling. (Source: Greenwire)

Oil profit announcements next week may give Dems edge in spat over offshore drilling

(Photo of ConocoPhillips gas station from Flickr and photographer Alec Ananian)

Washington Report 1: Three major oil companies will announce their earnings next week, possibly giving Democrats an advantage in the political fight over energy. Dems today failed 50-43 to pass a bill calling for more regulation of commodity traders, blaming high gas prices on speculators. Republicans, on the other hand, are calling for more domestic exploration, especially offshore and in shale. Dems say the oil companies should drill in the 68 million acres they already have under lease rather than offshore, and tried unsuccessfully to pass a bill to that effect. One big oil company, ConocoPhillips, announced its second-quarter earnings last week, revealing a $5.4 billion profit, up 13% from the same period last year. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Chicago) criticized the oil companies for using too much of their record profits for stock buy-backs and not enough for drilling. ConocoPhillips used $2.5 billion to buy back stocks. Exxon, Chevron and BP will all announce their earnings next week. Dem leaders are expecting record profits from all, at a time when people are hurting because of the price of gas. They think that will give them an election-campaign advantage, while Republicans think they have a winning message with their call for more offshore drilling. If you want to take action in opposition to offshore drilling, go to the Sierra Club Web site and write an effective letter to the editor. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E Daily)

Two polls: High gas prices spark shift in opinions on more domestic oil exploration

(Photo of offshore drilling in Galveston from Flickr and photographer absolutwade/Beau Wade)
News Update 1: Two new polls are discouraging. They show growing numbers of voters favoring oil exploration in the U.S. and offshore. In Florida, specifically, a Rasmussen polls shows 59% of voters favoring offshore drilling. Breaking it out by party, 83% of Republicans, 38% of Dems and 54% of Independent are OK with offshore drilling in Florida, a substantial change since 2004. The same poll showed John McCain, who favors offshore drilling, leading Barack Obama, who doesn’t, 48-41. In a Pew Research national poll, 47% of the population wants to expand domestic drilling and open new power plants, compared with just 35% 5 months ago. There was a 10-point drop in those seeing conservation as the most important step on energy. Liberals’ favorables for oil exploration doubled from 22% to 45%. Half the people survey agreed with drilling in ANWR. The price at the pump trumps all. (Source: Greenwire)