White House: Immigration Is 'Important' And Energy Is 'Critical,' But Reid 'Sets The Agenda' 27

Posted by Wonk Room Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:42:00 GMT

From the Wonk Room.

Although both immigration and climate reform are top priorities for the Obama administration, White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said, it is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who “sets the agenda.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd questioned Barnes Monday morning over the conflict between Reid and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that derailed the expected unveiling of comprehensive climate legislation Monday. Barnes said that energy reform – what President Obama has called one of his “foundational priorities” – is “critical to this country,” while immigration reform is “important.” However, she repeatedly indicated that the responsibility for moving forward lies with Reid:
MELODY BARNES: What the president and administration want is to work with Congress, Republicans and Democrats in Congress to address these big issues. The Senate Majority Leader will make a decision how to go forward. Immigration reform is important. We also know that comprehensive energy reform is critical to this country. We have to get away from reliance on foreign oil. We know we can create clean energy jobs. So both of these are top priorities for this president. We’re going to be working with the Senate.

CHUCK TODD: Can either be signed this year?

BARNES: We’re hoping to move forward with the majority leader as he sets the agenda.

Watch it:

Reid’s staff had leaked to reporters that the majority leader wanted the Senate to consider an immigration bill before climate legislation, a statement that made little sense other than a response to local political pressures. As Graham, who has been the lead Republican on both issues, voiced his displeasure, it seems neither Reid nor the White House reached out to quell his anger. Graham and Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) American Power Act is ready to be unveiled for direct floor consideration, but immigration reform requires “significant committee work that has not yet begun”—as Reid said. President Obama has been keeping his pledge to immigration reform advocates to raise the issue with Republicans like Sen. Scott Brown (D-MA) to get on board with Graham and Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) immigration effort, but the two bills aren’t on the same timetable.

In addition to the fealty of most Republicans to killer fossil industries, Democrats have competing camps on the best pathway to energy action, with senators like Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) pushing for alternate strategies to President Obama’s comprehensive climate reform. Reid has waffled on whether he would be willing to risk conflict with Democratic committee chairs by taking climate reform straight to the floor. This potential conflict with senators like agriculture chair Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and finance chair Max Baucus (D-MT) would likely have to be mediated by the President, even as Graham would have the responsibility of locking down Republican votes other than himself.

Transcript:

TODD: I understand that there’s this idea that everybody here wants to walk and chew gum at the same time but we will know Washington sort of can handle one big issue at a time. Financial reform at some point feels like it’s going to wrap interrupt next couple weeks. It sounds like energy, immigration, can you really expect this town to handle both at the same time or is there going to have to be one over the other?

BARNES: When we walked in the door we inherited big problems. I think what this president has shown is he can handle a number of challenges at the same time.

TODD: Maybe he can but Congress is a different story. We know they have their priorities. I guess what I’m asking, would the White House accept immigration going before energy?

BARNES: What the president and administration want is to work with Congress, Republicans and Democrats in Congress to address these big issues. The Senate Majority Leader will make a decision how to go forward. immigration reform is important. We also know that comprehensive energy reform is critical to this country. We have to get away from reliance on foreign oil. We know we can create clean energy jobs. So both of these are top priorities for this president. We’re going to be working with the Senate.

TODD: Can either be signed this year?

BARNES: We’re hoping to move forward with the majority leader as he sets the agenda.

TODD: If he’s picking immigration, he’s setting the agenda.

BARNES: He’s the majority leader.

Whisper Campaign Derails Climate Bill Rollout 14

Posted by Wonk Room Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:21:00 GMT

Lindsey GrahamThe unveiling of green economy legislation by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Monday has been indefinitely postponed, following a whisper campaign that Senate leadership preferred tackling immigration reform instead. Below is the timeline of the last four days, in which political reporters quote anonymous “Democratic officials” and “Senate Democratic aides” to promote the rumor:

Wednesday, April 21: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) meet. Based entirely on comments from anonymous “Senate Democratic aides,” Roll Call’s John Stanton claims that “Democratic leaders are pushing ahead with plans to move comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year — even if it means punting on energy legislation until next Congress.” The Hill’s Ben Geman cites “a Democratic aide” to claim Pelosi said she is “fine” with “the Senate taking up immigration reform before climate change legislation.” The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler cites “three Democratic officials” to claim “both leaders said they would put immigration ahead of energy on their priority list.”

Thursday, April 22, Earth Day: The Associated Press’s Laurie Kellerman and Matthew Day cite “two Democratic officials” to repeat the immigration-first rumor.

Pelosi holds a press conference, and is asked about the rumor. Pelosi responds that “energy security and addressing the climate crisis is the flagship issue of my speakership,” notes that the House has “already passed our energy bill,” and “if the Senate is ready with an immigration bill, we don’t want anybody holding it up for any reason, and we would be pleased to welcome it to the House.” Fox News’ Chad Pergram interprets her remarks to claim “Pelosi Okay On Delaying Climate Bill in Lieu of Immigration.”

Graham tells reporters that “If immigration comes up then that’s the ultimate CYA politics,” and “It destroys the ability to do something like energy and climate” to jump to immigration reform legislation, because “We haven’t done anything to prepare the body or the country for immigration” and “business and labor are not together on a temporary worker bill.”

In a story by Politico’s Marin Cogan about Graham’s comments, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) “declined to say which bill she’d prefer be taken up first.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) tells the Christian Science Monitor’s Linda Feldmann, “I don’t know that anybody made a determination in the discussions I have had with leadership that immigration is more important than energy,” and agrees with Graham’s assessment, “I am not sure the Senate can move an immigration bill.”

Friday, April 23: A “Democratic aide” tells Politico’s Kasie Hunt: “Immigration is gaining steam; climate change may suffer.”

“I think these are separate issues on separate legislative tracks,’’ Lieberman says in a conference call. “One will not adversely affect the other.” Hartford Courant’s Daniela Altimari reports “Lieberman said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured him that he will bring the climate and energy bill to the floor, likely in late May or early June, barring any obstacles.”

Saturday, April 24: Graham sends a letter to business, religious and conservation leaders that “I will be unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time” because of “what appears to be a decision by the Obama Administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move immigration instead of energy,” unless “their plan substantially changes this weekend.”

Reid, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin writes, “declined to assure Graham on Saturday that he would put immigration behind energy in the legislative lineup,” responding in a statement instead: “I will not allow him to play one issue off of another, and neither will the American people.” The Hill’s Eric Zimmerman interprets Reid’s statement to claim he “said today that Democrats might push climate legislation before immigration reform.” Reid’s statement blames Republicans, specifically “the tremendous pressure he is under from members of his own party not to work with us on either measure.”

The White House “also declined to indicate whether it would address Graham’s concerns,” issuing a statement by climate advisor Carol Browner saying, “We believe the only way to make progress on these priorities is to continue working as we have thus far in a bipartisan manner to build more support for both comprehensive energy independence and immigration reform legislation.” Talking Points Memo’s Christina Bellantoni notes Browner says about climate reform, “We’re determined to see it happen this year.”

In the evening, Kerry releases a statement that “regrettably external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily” the Monday unveiling because Graham “feels immigration politics have gotten in the way and for now prevent him from being engaged in the way he intended.” “Joe and I will continue to work together and are hopeful that Lindsey will rejoin us once the politics of immigration are resolved.”

In summary: although Lieberman and Hoyer attempted to debunk the rumor, Senate leadership and the White House refused to address the rumor of timing spread by anonymous Democratic staffers and officials. Graham, who has also been the lead Republican working on immigration with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), announced Saturday he would not participate in a bill rollout with its fate on the Senate calendar placed in competition with unwritten immigration legislation.

Stakeholder Based Climate and Energy Actions: Economic Impacts of National Policies and Measures 10

Posted by Brad Johnson Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:00:00 GMT

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) invite you to a briefing on The Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Policy Options on the U.S. Economy, a new study by CCS that examines the nationwide impacts of 23 major strategies formulated by over 1,500 stake-holders in more than 20 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve energy and environ-mental co-benefits. At a time of recession and high unemployment, many question putting demands on our economic sectors and fear that increased energy prices will slow the economy and harm jobs. But macro-economic analysis of a diverse set of policies and measures selected and designed by stakeholders in numerous states shows that addressing climate change and promoting energy policy can spur the economy, create jobs, and reduce energy prices. The briefing panel will provide perspectives on local, state and federal program opportunities for economic development and job creation in all sectors.

Speakers for this event include:
  • Adam Rose, Economics Professor, School of Policy, Planning and Development (SPPD), University of Southern California
  • Jeff Wennberg, Project Manager, Center for Climate Strategies; former Vermont Environment Commissioner and former Mayor of Rutland, Vermont
  • Joe Sherrick, Climate Change Program Manager, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
  • Tom Peterson, President and CEO, Center for Climate Strategies, Adjunct Professor at the Johns Hopkins University Global Security Center

More than 30 states have created comprehensive state climate action plans, comprised of balanced portfolios of mitigation measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and saving or diversifying energy within their states. These policies address several sectors of the economy, including energy supply, manufacturing, agriculture, buildings, transportation, and waste management. Many are highly cost effective, save consumers money, and have other co-benefits—such as improving public health or reducing reliance on imported oil. The report looks at recommendations for action at all levels of government under a national policy framework developed by stakeholders through climate planning.

This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. For more information, contact Laura Parsons at (202) 662-1884 or lparsons@eesi.org.

New Nationwide Poll and Surveys in Five Moderate States Shows Majority Support for Energy Reform, “Clean Energy Refund” Preferred by Republicans 9

Posted by Brad Johnson Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:30:00 GMT

On Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 11:30 am Glen Bolger from Public Opinion Strategies will brief media on his findings from a national survey and a smaller five state survey asking likely voters about potential climate legislation. The state surveys were conducted in Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, and Virginia.

Joining Glen will be Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Chief Economist for President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, domestic and economic policy advisor to John McCain’s presidential campaign, currently a Commissioner on the Congressionally-chartered Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission; and Dr. Andrew Maguire, former Member of Congress, currently Senior Advisor to Clean Air-Cool Planet, a leading science-based non-partisan NGO engaged in climate policy.

  • Glen Bolger, Public Opinion Strategies
  • Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin
  • Andrew Maguire

To join the call:

Dial Toll-free: 866-866-2244
Participant Code: 1368508

Survey highlights include:

  • Based on polling in five states that are politically moderate to conservative, a majority of voters across party lines want to overhaul the nation’s energy system to reduce polluting emissions and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
  • For elected officials looking to address the issue, a clean energy refund has the best potential to attract Republican support.
  • When we tested a description of a specific clean energy refund policy, similar to the Senate CLEAR Act, in a national survey, there is strong support from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Public Opinion Strategies completed a national survey of 800 likely voters on April 11-13, 2010. A question was piggybacked on the national survey, and the results have a margin of error of +3.46 in 95 out of 100 cases.

Earlier, Public Opinion Strategies completed a survey in five states – Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, and Virginia. The survey was conducted March 17-18, 20-21, 2010 among 200 likely voters in each state, for a total sample of 1,000 likely voters. The overall sample has a margin of error of +3.1% in 95 out of 100 cases, while each state sample has a margin of error of +6.93%.

Time to Act? Next Steps for a Climate Bill - A Planet Forward Conversation 9

Posted by Brad Johnson Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:00:00 GMT

Be at GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs for an insider’s guide to America’s next great legislative challenge. We’ll have a one-on-one discussion with top Obama official, Lisa Jackson, and a panel discussion with representatives from media, business and policy to get a picture of what the next stages of the climate debate will be. Will the upcoming Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill get us on the right path? Or will it happen in the scientific or business sectors? Find out. And find out who really wins and loses when the stakes are this high?

Joining SMPA Director and Planet Forward Host Frank Sesno will be Lisa Jackson (US EPA), Ana Unruh-Cohen (House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming), Andrew Revkin (New York Times), Jim Connaughton (Constellation Energy Group), Dr. Dan Lashof (Natural Resources Defense Council) and Kate Sheppard (Mother Jones). We’ll also feature some of the best videos recently submitted to PlanetForward.org…including films from GW’s very own Planet Forward class!

A Co-presentation of GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs, The George Washington University School of Business and GW’s Environmental Studies program.

RSVP

Jack Morton Auditorium
School of Media and Public Affairs
805 21st Street NW
Washington, DC 20052

Drilling For Votes: Senators Stake Out Climate And Energy Stances 11

Posted by Brad Johnson Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:34:00 GMT

From the Wonk Room.

Senators are beginning to seriously tackle climate and clean energy reform, responding to the leadership of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) with letters staking out positions and making specific demands. Here’s an overview of these letters:

The Udall Group: Twenty-two Senators Say Senate Should ‘Consider’ Climate Legislation ‘This Year’.
Led by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a moderate bloc of twenty-two Democratic senators “believe the United States should consider bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this year with a renewed focus on jobs and reduced dependence on foreign oil.” Critically, eleven of the signatories last year signed on to a Republican filibuster threat of green economy legislation, and seven are members of Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) Moderate Democrats Working Group . Bayh himself did not sign Udall’s letter.

Download the Udall Group letter. Signatories: Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Brown (D-OH), Burris (D-IL), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Franken (D-MN), Hagan (D-NC), Harkin (D-IA), Kaufman (D-DE), Klobuchar (D-MN), Merkley (D-OR), Murray (D-WA), Shaheen (D-NH), Specter (D-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT), Udall (D-NM), Udall (D-CO), Warner (D-VA), and Wyden (D-OR).

The Nuke Group: A Bipartisan Group Of Eleven Senators Demand A Nuclear Energy Summit.
Five Democrats and six Republicans, from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), propose the White House hold a “nuclear energy summit” on the “development of a 50-year strategy” within “the next 3-4 months,” because “safe nuclear power must play an increasingly important role in meeting our rising energy demand and ensuring cleaner air.” They want Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Adminstrator Lisa Jackson, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, and Bill Gates to attend.

Download the Nuke Group letter. Signatories: Carper (D-DE), Landrieu (D-LA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Webb (D-VA), Warner (D-VA), Voinovich (R-OH), Crapo (R-ID), Vitter (R-LA), Sessions (R-AL), Alexander (R-TN) and Inhofe (R-OK).

Coastal State Senators: Don’t Drill On Me.
In a letter to Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, ten Democratic senators from coastal states – Florida, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oregon, and Ted Kaufman of Delaware – write that “our states are literally the front lines when it comes to the severe impacts we’ll see from sea level rise and stronger storms,” and express their concerns that “some interests are aggressively pursuing an effort to open the nation’s coasts and oceans for unfettered access to oil and gas drilling.” They reject “the concept of sharing revenue with states,” as “funds that belong to the American people should be shared equally and prioritized to reduce the federal deficit and to protect our oceans and coasts that provide this resource.” They call for use-it-or-lose-it language on oil leases. Increased offshore drilling won’t reduce the cost of gas, they recognize, saying “the only way for us to lower oil prices is to pursue and aggressive policy of energy efficiency and conservation.”

Download the Coastal Senators letter. Signatories: Nelson (D-FL), Menendez (D-NJ), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Reed (D-RI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Cardin (D-MD), Mikulski (D-MD), Merkley (D-OR), Wyden (D-OR), and Kaufman (D-DE).

Feinstein Drills Into Policy Details.
In a letter to Kerry, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) touches on several specific policy details for his “bipartisan legislation to address the pressing problem of climate change.” She wants heavy industry to be exempted from the initial cap, opposes pre-emption of California’s tailpipe emissions standards, supports the Waxman-Markey formula for electric utility permit giveaways, wants new offshore drilling to require state-level legislation, thanks Kerry for including the Snowe-Feinstein market oversight language, and wants the oil carbon fee to be indexed to an emissions target rather than a carbon market. Significantly, Feinstein recommends that “the legislation’s spending authorizations expire no later than ten years after enactment”—a major change from the forty-year permit allocation formulas in previous legislation.

Download Feinstein’s letter.

Begich: ‘Alaska Is Ground Zero For Climate Change,’ So Let’s Drill It.
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) penned a letter saying “Alaska is ground zero for climate change. We are feeling its near-term effects far more than the residents of any other state, including retreating sea ice, rapidly eroding shorelines, thawing permafrost, ocean acidification, and changing fish and wildlife migration patterns.” Despite this, Begich calls for “greater emphasis and expanded incentives for natural gas” and “sharing in revenue from oil and gas development” from federal waters off the Arctic coast. Citing the “billions of dollars” of “damage to Alaska public infrastructure alone due to climate change,” Begich also requests “a higher priority for domestic rather than international adaptation funding” and an increased investment in Arctic research.

However, Begich does not call for stronger emissions reduction targets, stronger renewable or efficiency standards, stronger investments in green technologies, or anything that would allow the United States to lead an international agreement to halt greenhouse gas pollution.

Download Begich’s letter.

Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have been holding a marathon of meetings. On Thursday they met with representatives of oil majors Shell, BP America, and ConocoPhillips, yet again with the pollution lobbyists of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and also with Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and later with members of the electric utility trade group Edison Electric Institute.

None of these senators’ letters call for stronger pollution reductions, stronger renewable or efficiency standards, stronger scientific review, stronger regulation of hydraulic fracturing, stronger action on coal ash waste, stronger mercury rules, an end to mountaintop removal, or greater auctions of pollution permits.

Putting a Predictable Price on Carbon: Opportunities for Bipartisan Agreement 11

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:30:00 GMT

Opening remarks
  • Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
Panelists
  • Steve Kline, Vice President, Corporate Environmental and Federal Affairs, PG&E
  • Mike Parr, Senior Manager, Federal Affairs, Dupont
  • Michael Schnitzer, Economic Policy Advisor, Entergy (Northbridge Group)
  • Amit Ronen, Deputy Chief of Staff, Senator Cantwell
Moderated by
  • Jason Grumet, President, The Bipartisan Policy Center

RSVP here.

Senate Watch: Baucus, Boxer, Conrad, Kerry, Feinstein, Graham, Klobuchar, Lieberman, Murkowski, Reid, Mark Udall, Voinovich 9

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:31:00 GMT

Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Senate Finance Chairman

The Hill If it’s a viable bill, we’ll have a markup.

National Journal I just want to see the bill when it’s written. I’d be foolhardy to get more specific.

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman

E&E News In general terms, they give a lot of power to the states on that [offshore drilling]. It seems to me what they’re doing is they’re taking the best ideas that have appeared over the years.

Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

E&E News I’m kind of waiting to see what happens. But if it looks like we’re not going to advance on the broader bill, I think it’s critically important that we at least have legislation to reduce dependence on foreign energy. I just think it’s critically important to the economy, critically important to our energy and economic future, and that can be done in a way that it’s harmonized with reducing our carbon footprint as well.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

E&E News On such a substantial decision about the future of a state [offshore drilling], a decision should be made by both the legislature and the governor. The state should also have the power to review its decision on a regular basis.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

E&E News I’m still committed to trying to roll out a vision of how you can price carbon and make it business-friendly. We’re still going to do that. ... But the truth of the matter is, I think you’re going to find most of our colleagues around here risk adverse.

John Kerry (D-Mass.), Senate Foreign Affairs Chairman

E&E News In the wake of health care’s passage, we have a strong case to make that this can be the next breakthrough legislative fight. Many senators who want to see a comprehensive energy and climate bill passed have been consumed with the drive to get health care passed. The same was rightfully true of the White House even as they kept the coals warm on energy and climate. Now they can pour their energy and attention into climate and energy. And here I think we can put the pieces of real bipartisanship back together.

E&E News We have a lot of work to do in the next 48 hours.

The Hill This will be the first time that we have sort of gone through an overall sense of where we think we are right now, but it is not cast in stone yet either. We expect in the next days to kind of really close in on some concepts, but we have a lot of meetings going on right now.

National Journal He [Sen. Reid] has said repeatedly that we are going to do the combination of climate and energy. I don’t think he’s ever varied from that.

Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

E&E News We’re going to have to see language on this, but clearly there was interest in the bill and moving along. People hadn’t staked out ground against it. They were very open to it.

Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)

E&E News We’d like to go to drafting over the break… let us know if they have specific parts of what we’re describing that they want to respond to.

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

E&E News It’s [the mood on Capitol Hill] no different than it was last week. It was bad last week. It’s going to be bad this week. Who knows what it’s going to be like next week?

Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

E&E News I’ve got lots of options on energy. And I’m going to try to work it through with Bingaman and Kerry.

E&E News Clean natural gas projects like this will help us use this clean energy source to strengthen our economy while protecting Nevada’s great outdoors.

Mark Udall (D-Colo.)

E&E News It’s reasonable to protect proprietary information of individual companies. That said, the public has many questions about fracturing technology’s impacts on the environment, and we need to make sure their reasonable questions and concerns are answered.

George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

E&E News It [the KGL draft] raises a lot of questions. I want to keep working on the answers.

Sen. Levin Outlines Demands In "Dear John" Letter On Climate 11

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:08:00 GMT

In a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) outlined his policy priorities for the comprehensive climate legislation Sen. Kerry is authoring. Levin’s letter highlights “some of the points I made at the March 2 meeting on climate legislation” :

  • Eliminate California waiver for automotive emissions
  • Pre-empt EPA from Clean Air Act regulation of stationary sources
  • A “realistic and firm” price collar
  • A “delay of at least 10 years in regulation of industrial sources”
  • “Sufficient” allowances for industrial sources
  • Trade provisions “to assure a level playing field”
  • A “100% emissions-based distribution formula” for permits to electricity generation

Although Levin’s language is unclear, the “delay of at least 10 years in regulation of industrial sources” appears to refer to individual site performance standards, not a decade-long delay in including industrial polluters under a market-based cap.

Giving allowances away to polluters for free based on their historic emissions, or “grandfathering,” says Environment America, “rewards owners of highly polluting facilities and discourages innovation.” Europe’s grandfathered cap-and-trade system generated $100 billion in windfall profits before they moved to an auctioned-credit system.

The liberal organization MoveOn is strongly opposed to pre-emption of the Clean Air Act in climate legislation.

Full text of the letter below:

March 5, 2010

The Honorable John Kerry
Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear John:

I am writing to reiterate some of the points I made at the March 2 meeting on climate legislation:

  • A binding national standard for greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources is needed, with clear pre-emption of states adopting a different standard. The rules for greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources should be set by Congress, superseding EPA’s existing statutory authority under the Clean Air Act.
  • A realistic and firm “price collar” is needed to ensure that businesses and consumers do not face excessive costs and to provide more certainty for businesses to invest in the new clean energy economy.
  • A delay of at least 10 years in regulation of industrial sources is needed, with a further delay provided for if important trade provisions to assure a level playing field are not included and fully implemented. Sufficient allowances for industrial sources are needed to cover both direct and indirect emissions. This is critical for ensuring that cost disparities relative to greenhouse gas controls do not erode our international competitiveness.
  • Any approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions needs to take into account the differences in the source of electricity generation across the country, in order to avoid regional disparities. An allocation formula based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on sales would result in some states bearing an unfair and disproportionate share of the costs. As can be seen in the attached table, a 50-50 allocation would result in a wide disparity in the extent to which emission allowance needs are met, with a difference across states of 47%. A 100% emissions-based distribution formula is a more equitable approach (but there still is a difference across states of 22%). An adequate total number of allowances to the electricity sector is also needed to ensure a realistic and smooth transition to lower carbon-intensive electricity production.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin

Download the letter.

AARP Endorses Cantwell-Collins 9

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:40:00 GMT

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has endorsed the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877), co-sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). In a letter sent to the senators, AARP Executive Vice President for Social Impact Nancy LeaMond embraced the CLEAR Act’s program of monthly rebate checks to all Americans paid for by a full auction of crabon credits.

The letter has some logical inconsistencies, claiming that AARP does not “advocate for any specific targets or structure for reducing carbon emissions and allocating emissions credits” but later stating that CLEAR’s “federal auction of 100% of emissions credits” is one of the features “essential to helping residential consumers transition to a clean energy economy.”

AARP has no official position on the existence of man-made climate change (“we do not take positions on the scientific issues underlying the debate on global warming”).

Full text of letter below:

March 9, 2010

Dear Senators Cantwell and Collins:

On behalf of AARP and its 39 million members, I want to thank you for introducing S. 2877, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act, and for you continuing leadership on behalf of America’s consumers in the Senate debate over energy independence and climate change. Your CLEAR Act legislation offers a thoughtful, bipartisan approach to reducing harmful carbon dioxide emissions while also mitigating potential energy cost increases to consumers.

AARP approaches the issue of climate change from a somewhat unique perspective. As we are not an environmental advocacy organization, we do not take positions on the scientific issues underlying the debate on global warming, nor do we advocate for any specific targets or structure for reducing carbon emissions and allocating emissions credits among power generators and local utilities. Our primary interest is protecting consumers from having to pay a disproportionate or excessive share of the cost of any approach Congress determines will best limit carbon emissions and encourage alternative electric generation.

Our expertise in this area derives from our advocacy on behalf of consumers in state utility regulatory proceedings and our understanding of the complexities of state utilities regulation. For more than 20 years, AARP has been the only national organization consistently working at the federal level and in the states to advance energy affordability and consumer protections from unfair utility policies and rate increases. Last year alone, our national and state office staff engaged in legislative and regulatory efforts in 30 states that resulted in nearly $120 million in documented savings for consumeres.

The CLEAR Act offers a uniquely pro-consumer approach for addressing climate change on an economy-wide basis. It proposes a federal auction of 100% of emissions credits, with the proceeds from 75% of these credits reserved for direct assistance to consumers in monthly cash rebates. It seeks to mitigate indirect costs that are routinely passed on to consumers by imposing a price collar on the price for emission credits to prevent price spikes and promote energy price stability, while also prohibiting trading of emissions credits to avoid what analysts estimate could become a trillion dollar trading market for carbon credits. It establishes an energy efficiency rebate loan program to help consumers finance home energy efficiency improvements. In addition, the CLEAR Act proposes to use part of the proceeds from the remaining 25% of credits for additional assistance to low-income consumers, recognizing that low- and fixed-income households routinely spend a far larger proportion of their monthly incomes on utilities. And it authorizes and funds a Consumer Advocate Office to provide a truly independent voice for consumers in regulatory proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

AARP strongly supports these features of your legislation as essential to helping residential consumers transition to a clean energy economy, and protecting them from having to bear an unfair share of the cost. We look forward to working with you to highlight the innoveative and important features of your legislation and to ensure that they are included in any final climate change legislation.

Thank you again for your continued leadership on this and other issues that are of critical importance to older Americans. Please feel free to call on me, or have your staff call Marti T. Doneghy, Senior Legislative Representative in our Office of Government Relations and Advocacy at (202) 434-3804 or contact her at mdoneghy@aarp.org if we can provide you with any information or assistance.

Sincerely,

Nancy LeaMond Executive Vice President for Social Impact AARP

Older posts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38