Amendment List for Lieberman-Warner Markup
Tomorrow morning’s Environment and Public Works markup of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill (S. 2191) promises to be long and contentious, quite possibly to be extended to Thursday. Republicans have proposed over 150 amendments, with Sen. Craig offering 46; EE News reports they expect votes on upwards of 50 of the amendments. Democrats have submitted about 30 amendments.
Below is a summary of the amendments the senators of the committee are planning to submit, in addition to Sen. Boxer’s manager’s mark.
Major amendments include Sen. Clinton’s two amendments. The first establishes 100% auction of permits, and the second dramatically restricts CCS funding. Sanders #4 establishes an 80% target and #7 limits total offset permits. Vitter #10 restricts ownership of allowances primarily to covered entities. Carper #1 places caps on traditional air pollutants and Carper #2 bases permit giveaways to power sector on historical electricity production, not emissions. Isakson proposed various pro-nuclear amendments.
Friends of the Earth has highlighted five amendments they support.
Clinton proposed two amendments:
Amendment 1 (with Sanders) eliminates allowance giveaways Amendment 2 restricts CCS funding to those determined necessary to commercialize such technology
Sanders proposed nine amendments:
Amendment 1 tweaks the the advanced-tech vehicles incentive program Amendment 2 allows auction proceeds for zero/low carbon tech to go to domestic manufacturing of components Amendment 3 restores the subcommittee markup language that makes only CCS projects that meet an 85% reduction eligible for bonus allowances Amendment 4 changes the 2050 target to an 80% reduction Amendment 5 requires EPA to strengthen cap if global average temperature increase not likely below 2 degrees Celsius Amendment 6 replaces the 1/3 state allocation based on fossil fuel activities with energy efficiency efforts Amendment 7 limits total offsets allowed instead of 15% per entity Amendments 8 and 9 restore definition of “leakage” and “reversal” to subcommittee markup language
Carper proposed four amendments:
Amendment 1 caps pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Amendment 2 bases emissions permit giveaways on electricity output, not historical emissions (a change requested by PG&E). Amendment 3 supports recycling. Amendment 4 expands and modifies the transit allocation
Whitehouse proposed four amendments:
Amendments 1 and 2 deal with coastal impacts Amendment 3 proposes a tax rebate system for low- and middle-income households Amendment 4 restricts states’ use of free allowances to investment in energy efficiency
Lautenberg proposed five amendments:
Amendment 1 increases the decoupling incentive in permit allocations to states from 1% to 2% Amendment 2 calls for a study on aviations emissions Amendment 3 creates a set aside in auction revenues to fund local energy efficiency efforts Amendment 4 is intended to protect scientific integrity Amendment 5 directs 0.5% of auction proceeds for intercity rail
Barrasso proposed 11 amendments:
Amendments 2 and 3 support Wyoming and Montana coal R&D. Amendment 8 eliminates the Climate Change and National Security Fund Amendment 11 overrides the Endangered Species Act
Vitter proposed 14 amendments:
Amendments 1 and 5 allow offshore and on-land natural gas drilling, respectively Amendments 2 and 3 require studies on industry displacement Amendment 4 allows renewable fuel program credits to qualify as emissions credits Amendments 6 and 9 removes various sources from coverage Amendment 7 removes injury liability from CCS activities Amendment 8 prevents implementation if other environmental regulations are found to be adversely impacted Amendment 10 restricts permit banking to 18 months on non-covered entities (a change requested by the AFL-CIO) Amendment 11 modifies transportation fuel coverage Amendments 12-14 make “technical” corrections
Isakson proposed four amendments, three of which support nuclear energy. Amendment 3 prohibits the enactment of a cap without sufficient known technology, an amendment which failed in subcommittee.
Klobuchar proposed four amendments:
Amendment 1 establishes bonus allocations for renewable energy Amendment 2 reduces allowance giveaways to the power sector Amendment 3 establishes a RES Amendment 4 supports low-income consumer energy costs
Bond proposed eight amendments. 1-6 are designed to protect consumers and industry against economic harm through various means of limiting emissions reductions. Amendment 7 provides a liability system for carbon sequestration. Amendment 8 supports CCS technology.
Cardin proposed three amendments:
Amendment 1 funds the management activities of the federal agencies involved by selling allowances. Amendment 2 increases allowance allocations reserved for mass transit support from one to two percent. Amendment 3 directs auction proceeds to a Global Environmental Monitoring Systems Fund.
Inhofe proposed approximately 45 amendments, some of which are joke amendments (#12 “directs 20% of all auction proceeds be used to build homeless shelters for families without shelter as a result of job displacement due to this Act”). Amendments #23-#28 are pro-nuclear. Amendment #32 increases the auction percentage to 100% by 2029. Amendment #38 overrides the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision.
Craig proposed 46 amendments, many of which add other legislation into the bill. Amendments 2-10 deal with forestry provisions. Amendments 11-20 are “technical” corrections. Amendment #36 allows offshore natural gas drilling. Various amendments scattered throughout deal with nuclear power.
Climate Change Bills Markup
- S 1581 — Federal Ocean Acidification Research And Monitoring (FOARAM) Act of 2007
- S 2307 — Global Change Research Improvement Act of 2007
- S 2355 — Climate Change Adaptation Act
- S 2332 — Media Ownership Act of 2007
Several bills designed to promote research on adapting to global warming were approved Tuesday by a Senate panel.The bills are not geared toward limiting climate change. Rather, they are aimed at helping federal, state and local officials adapt to the possible consequences of global warming.
The Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the measures by voice vote. The Environment and Public Works Committee will begin marking up a broad climate-change bill Wednesday.
Tuesday’s markup was mostly perfunctory, but one bill did engender some debate. The measure (S 2355), sponsored by Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would require the president to prepare a strategy for addressing the impacts of climate change in the United States and require federal departments and agencies to prepare adaptation plans.
The legislation also would direct the Commerce secretary to conduct regional assessments of the vulnerability of ocean and coastal resources.
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said science does not currently have the ability to make those types of predictions on a regional scale.
“This requirement of the bill would have many significant impacts on the economy of my state,” Stevens said.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she would work with Stevens to address his concerns as the measure proceeds.
The committee also approved a bill (S 2307), sponsored by John Kerry, D-Mass., and Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, that would set up a “national climate service” within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assess the impacts of climate change at state and local levels.
Proponents say state and local governments do not have enough information about how global warming could affect specific regions of the country. They also say the government needs to do a better job of relaying this information in a way that is relevant to policy makers.
The bill is partly a response to criticism of the government’s implementation of the 1990 Global Change Research Act (PL 101-606), which requires assessments every four years of the impacts of changes in the global environment. The Clinton administration issued one national assessment in 2000, but the Bush administration has not issued one.
The bill would amend the law to clarify how comprehensive an assessment should be, a Senate aide said. It also would require a new strategic plan for the Global Change Research Program, an interagency group established under the law.
Many similar provisions in the bill are included in House-passed energy legislation (HR 3221). The two chambers are now preparing to move a new version of the energy bill to the floor; it remains unclear whether the climate-science language will become part of the final package.
The panel also approved a bill (S 1581) that would establish an interagency committee on ocean acidification. Greenhouse gas emissions can make oceans more acidic, potentially destroying ecosystems. It was introduced by Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Auto Manufacturers Support Energy Bill
As prefigured by John Dingell’s participation in the details of the CAFE component of the energy bill deal, the American auto industry is lending its support to the bill, a sharp reversal from its heavy lobbying against the standards in previous months.
Automakers, which have successfully blocked raising passenger car standards for more than two decades, objected to a 40 percent increase, saying it would cost them billions to comply and could force them to make fewer of their biggest, most profitable models.But General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said in a statement Saturday that the Detroit automaker will meet the new challenge.
“There are tough, new CAFE standards contained in the energy bill before Congress that pose a significant technical and economic challenge to the industry,” Wagoner said. “But, it’s a challenge that GM is prepared to put forth its best effort to meet with an array of engineering, research and development resources. We will continue our aggressive pursuit of advance technologies that will deliver more products with more energy solutions to our customers.”
Toyota Motor Corp. praised congressional leaders for “taking this very important step toward establishing new, aggressive nationwide fuel economy standards.”
“Toyota will not wait for new standards to be set, but will move forward expeditiously to apply advanced technologies to improve the fuel economy of our fleet,” said Jo Cooper, Toyota’s vice president for government affairs in North America.
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents Detroit’s Big Three, Toyota, Daimler AG and five other automakers, said “this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage.” Mike Stanton, who is president and CEO and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents Toyota, Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and Hyundai Motor Co., among others, expects his members to support the compromise. “We wanted Congress to act,” Stanton said in an interview. “It’s not perfect, but I think we’re going to be pleased.”
White House Threatens Veto of Energy Bill
In a letter to Congress, White House economic advisor Allan Hubbard reiterated President Bush’s October 15 veto threat of the energy bill deal brokered by the Democratic leadership, leaving no room for compromise from the president’s demands.
On October 15, I wrote you to outline a basic framework for a bill that would not compel the President’s senior advisors to recommend a veto. Based on the limitd information we have received, it seems the provisions under discussion would not satisfy those criteria. In fact, it appears Congress may intend to produce a bill the President cannot sign.The Administration continues to believe that all the elements described in my earlier letter constitute the appropriate framework for energy legislation. Press reports indicate that your draft energy bill would fail to meet at least some of these conditions, for example by including a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a title increasing taxes, or an expansion of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
Further criticisms include the difference between the Congressional renewable fuels standard and the White House’s preferred “alternative fuels standard”, and not excluding the EPA’s Clean Air Act authority from CAFE regulation.
The full letter is available here.
Domenici Criticizes Energy Bill
On Saturday, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, challenged the energy bill deal brokered by the Democratic leadership, attacking the inclusion of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (also known as the renewable electricity standard).
For weeks, my staff, along with Senator Bingaman’s, has been engaged in good faith negotiations with the House under a defined set of parameters laid out at the start of the process. We have made substantial bipartisan progress toward finalizing a bill. The legislation we have been working on contained a robust, much-needed Renewable Fuels Standard, important provisions on energy efficiency and carbon sequestration, and a long overdue increase in fuel economy standards. The parameters agreed to by Speaker Pelosi and communicated to us by Senate Democrats did not include a renewable portfolio standard.Domenici complained particularly about what he saw as a lack of good faith.
At this time, I have instructed my staff to cease their work on the energy bill, since the final bill apparently will not be the product of our bipartisan negotiations. As someone who has been working for 35 years to forge bipartisan, good-faith compromises on tough issues like the federal budget and energy policy, I know that your word means everything. It is particularly disappointing for me to see that such a sentiment seems to be a thing of the past.
Sen. Domenici himself has failed to maintain such bipartisan compromises on this very bill. During the May committee markup of the Senate version of the energy bill (S. 1321, H.R. 6), Sen. Domenici failed to maintain a bipartisan deal to avoid controversial amendments during markup—Democrats had agreed not to introduce RPS in committee, and Domenici claimed Republicans would not introduce coal-to-liquids language. However, Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., introduced a coal-to-liquids amendment, breaking the deal.
Stage Set for Lieberman-Warner Markup
EE News reports that Sen. Boxer likely has sufficient votes to pass her updated version of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (S. 2191) out of committee at Wednesday’s markup, though the markup process may take two days.
EE News reported on some responses to the changes in Sen. Boxer’s version, known as the “manager’s mark”:Environmental groups have different perspectives on the new version of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill.Dan Lashof, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, signaled support. “I think the bill continues to move in the right direction,” he said in an interview. “The changes [in the manager’s mark] are incremental from what was passed in the subcommittee.”
Of the new section for HFCs, Lashof predicted “net environmental benefits” by forcing HFC-polluting industries to compete with each other for emission credits.
But Friends of the Earth still has some of the same concerns that caused it to oppose the legislation in subcommittee. In particular, Erich Pica, the group’s economic policy analyst, found fault with the bill’s allocation system. “It gives away too many permits for free,” he said. “It’s a hundred billion dollar windfall for the polluting industries that got us into this mess in the first place. And the targets need to be strengthened.”
Industry also has its own problems.
At the Edison Electric Institute, spokesman Dan Riedinger said the Lieberman-Warner legislation includes targets and timetables that don’t match industry expectations for the readiness of new energy technologies. He also said the bill doesn’t do enough to hold down the costs to the U.S. economy. And it doesn’t press for enough reductions from developing economies like China and India.
“They don’t begin to address our overall concerns about the bill,” Riedinger said.
A collection of power companies that often lines up with Delaware’s Carper also took issue with the legislation. In a prepared statement issued Friday, the Clean Energy Group questioned the way the bill now favors coal-fired electric utilities over more energy efficient nuclear power and natural gas plants.
“We believe this approach will compromise the effective and efficient attainment of the greenhouse gas reduction targets by providing a subsidy to high-emitting generators,” the statement said. The group includes Entergy, FPL and Constellation Energy.
Congressional Leadership Announce Energy Bill Deal
Friday afternoon the Democratic leadership in Congress announced the results of the energy bill negotiations that began in August and went into overdrive during the Thanksgiving recess, particularly once Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) signaled his willingness to support the 35 MPG CAFE standard as long as some technical provisions were included.
CAFE will serve as the cornerstone of the energy legislation that will be on the House floor next week. We will achieve the major goal of increasing vehicle efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon in 2020, marking an historic advancement in our efforts in the Congress to address our energy security and laying strong groundwork for climate legislation next year. We are confident that this final product will win the support of the environmental, labor and manufacturing communities.This landmark energy legislation will offer the automobile industry the certainty it needs, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring we keep American manufacturing jobs and continued domestic production of smaller vehicles.
This comprehensive package will also include an increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard and a Renewable Electricity Standard, among other key provisions.
Translation of Pelosi’s statement:
“Offering flexibility to automakers”: The flex-fuel credit will extend to 2014, and be phased out by 2020.
“Continued domestic production of smaller vehicles”: The standards will distinguish between foreign-made and domestic vehicles
“Among other key provisions”: the status of the oil/gas subsidy rollback and related tax package, including the Production Tax Credit, is still under negotiation.
New Lieberman-Warner Draft Circulated
An aide to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a lead co-author of the bill, said one of the biggest changes involves an “upstream” cap placed on the heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that come from natural gas processors. With the new bill’s natural gas section, more than 80 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that come from the U.S. economy will be covered under the legislation.Some of the other changes (see line-by-line comparison):Previously, the bill dealt with about 75 percent of the U.S. economy.
Another change in the legislation speeds up by five years the end date for the free emission credits given out to power plants, manufacturers and other industrial sources. Free credits will now be phased out at the start of 2031, rather than the start of 2036.
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are separately capped (all allowances freely distributed), to “remove the financial incentive for companies to shut down their plants that use HFCs and move them to countries that don’t have similar limits” (s. 1202, 3901, 3906, 10001-11002)
- 25% of energy R&D funds explicitly allocated to renewable energy projects (an increase from a failed Sanders amendment in subcommittee markup) (s. 4401, s. 4406)
- 0.5% of annual emissions allowances to go to a “program for achieving” methane emissions reductions from landfills and coal mines (s. 3907)
- 1% of annual emissions allowances to go to states for mass transit funding, distributed following federal highway aid apportionment rules (s. 3304)
- Per the request of international aid groups, the national-security requirement for the Climate Change and National Security Fund has been dropped (s. 4801-4804)
- SEC requirement of corporate disclosure of climate risks dropped (s. 9002)
- Interagency Climate Task Force headed by EPA Administrator to submit a report “make public and submit to the President a consensus report making recommendations, including specific legislation for the President to recommend to Congress” in 2019 based on the triennial National Academy of Sciences reports
- Details added to Climate Change Worker Training Program (s. 4602-4606)
- Details added to Adaptation Fund (including combatting ocean acidification) (s. 4702)
- Details added to eligibility for carbon sequestration bonus allowances (s. 3602)
Renewables and Tax Provisions Likely Carved From Energy Bill
More details on the likely energy bill compromise are emerging. It appears that the renewable electricity standard and oil subsidy rollback provisions of the energy bill (H.R. 6/H.R. 3221), are being dropped, perhaps to be considered as a separate bill (per H.R. 2776) either concurrently or in the next year. The associated renewable incentives and research funds paid for by the rollback would have to also be dropped under pay-go rules.
The rollback was a key component of Speaker Pelosi’s 100 Hours Agenda:We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.
Reaching agreement on that timetable is likely to require Congressional leaders to drop provisions like a mandate that electric utilities nationwide generate 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric power. Utilities lobbied intensively against that requirement.A House-passed measure to repeal $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry is also expected to be scrapped, aides said. President Bush threatened to veto the entire package if the oil and gas tax bill were included.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing for a vote next week on compromise legislation aimed at reducing the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, a major source of greenhouse gases. Democratic leaders have wrestled for months with how to meld the Senate bill, which includes a new fuel-economy mandate for auto makers, and the House bill, which would require power companies to use greater amounts of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. With only a few weeks left in the year, Democrats are now considering a new option: moving two separate bills.One measure would include the proposed fuel-economy increase as well as a proposal to boost production of ethanol and related biofuels. The companion bill would include the utility mandate, as well as a tax package rolling back oil industry tax breaks.
CQ (subs. req.):
With oil nearing $100 per barrel and high prices at the gasoline pump, an agreement on corporate fuel economy standards is perhaps the most significant development to come out of the informal negotiations, which were launched after Republicans blocked a conference because they objected to provisions that would have increased taxes on the oil and gas industry and a requirement to have the nation’s electric utilities produce a percentage of their power from renewable sources.Those tax and “renewables” provisions were in the House-passed bill but absent from the Senate legislation. Lobbyists said it was likely that they would be taken up next year in a separate bill, or as part of House legislation to address climate change.
EE News (subs. req.):
Sources on and off Capitol Hill said Democratic leaders may try to move the oil taxes and renewable electricity provision as a separate bill, or even abandon them for the year.A Democratic aide close to the talks said House Democratic leaders “remain committed” to keeping these provisions. But both provisions face Senate roadblocks and would almost certainly draw GOP-led filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
The House bill requires utilities to provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, though roughly a fourth of the requirement can be met with energy efficiency measures.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) both support the plan, but it has run into stiff resistance, especially among Southeastern GOP lawmakers who claim their states lack enough renewable resources to meet the mandate.
The renewable electric power standard is a top priority of environmental groups. Marchant Wentworth, a lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said environmentalists are fighting to keep the provision alive. “It is a vital part of any comprehensive energy package,” he said.
The Bush administration, however, has issued veto threats over increased oil industry taxes and a renewable electric power mandate.
Movement on Energy Bill Compromise 1
According to a report in the National Journal’s subscription-only Congress Daily, Congress is nearing a compromise to resolve the differences between the Senate (HR 6) and House (HR 3221) versions of the comprehensive energy package. Major sticking points have been CAFE standards, renewable fuels mandate, a federal renewable energy standard, and renewable energy tax incentives (the renewable production tax credit (PTC)).
Speaker Pelosi indicated the sense of progress in a press release Monday:Congress is now moving forward with historic energy legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign fuels and promote energy efficiency. We have made significant progress toward completing this package and hope to have a final agreement next week.
The draft compromise, according to Congress Daily and Hill Heat sources, incorporates suggestions from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)’s November 13 letter to Speaker Pelosi.
CAFE- By 2020, 35 mpg average standard for cars, light trucks and SUVs (in line with HR 6)
- Separate fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks
- Distinctions between domestic and foreign-made vehicles in standards
- By 2015, required production of 20.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels, with as much as 15 billion gallons coming from corn-based ethanol (HR 6 had 36 billion by 2022)
- By 2015, required production of 5.5 billion gallons of advanced biofuels—fuel not derived from sugar or starch and that can cut lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in half
- National Academy of Sciences study within 18 months of mandate impact, followed by periodic reviews authorized by the Clean Air Act of technologies and the feasibility of complying with the mandate
- According to Hill Heat sources, the extension of the PTC is likely, though perhaps for as little as one year.
Deal Near On Fuel Efficiency, Renewables In Energy BillNegotiators have proposed scaling down a Senate renewable fuels mandate and are nearing a deal on raising fuel efficiency standards, sources said today. Under the deal being discussed, refiners would be required to produce 20.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2015, with as much as 15 billion gallons coming from corn-based ethanol, according to draft House language. The Senate-passed version would have required the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. The draft would mandate that 5.5 billion gallons of advanced biofuels – fuel not derived from sugar or starch and that can cut lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in half – must be produced by 2015. The draft plan might trigger limits starting in 2016 to further increases in renewable fuels production based on the impact renewable fuels production has on the environment, energy security, consumer prices and other factors. Critics – including refiners, livestock groups and grocery manufacturers – say the draft sets unreasonable production mandates. “We don’t think that the volumes that are called for in this draft have any basis in reality,” said an oil refinery lobbyist. It would require a National Academy of Sciences study within 18 months on the impact of the renewable fuels mandate followed by periodic reviews authorized by the Clean Air Act of technologies and the feasibility of complying with the mandate.
Negotiators are also close to a bipartisan deal raising the average standard for cars, light trucks and SUVs from 25 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by 2020, according to lobbyists following the talks. This would echo the Senate-approved plan. In a nod to automakers, the deal would adopt separate fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks and try to preserve domestic production of fuel-efficient cars, lobbyists said. This would be in line with a letter House Energy and Commerce Chairman Dingell sent Speaker Pelosi this month indicating his willingness to accept fuel efficiency that uses the Senate plan as its base while incorporating changes sought by automakers. Congressional aides say negotiations continue. Lawmakers might take up an energy bill as early as next week. Pelosi issued a statement Monday indicating that lawmakers have made “significant progress toward completing the package and hope to have a final agreement next week.” Aides have an internal deadline of Wednesday evening to finish an energy bill so it can be officially drafted and reviewed by lawmakers, lobbyists said. —by Darren Goode