Hill Heat

The House passed HR 3775 and 3776 today, both authored in the House Committee on Science and Technology.

Rep. Bart Gordon’s (D-TN) H.R. 3776, the Energy Storage Technology Advancement Act of 2007, provides for research, development, and demonstration programs to accelerate the development of advanced energy storage systems for vehicular, stationary, and electricity transmission and distribution applications, and support the ability of the United States to remain globally competitive in this field.

Endorsing groups include the Edison Electric Institute, American Electric Power, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, Johnson Controls, and Southern California Edison.

Rep. Nick Lampson’s (D-TX), H.R. 3775, the Industrial Energy Efficiency Research and Development Act of 2007, authorizes and supports research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of new industrial processes and technologies that will optimize energy efficiency, environmental performance, and economic competitiveness of energy intensive industries. It also enhances ongoing efforts through better coordination of interdepartmental research, and expands Industrial Assessment Centers programs at universities to promote student training and adoption of energy efficient technologies and practices by small and medium-sized industries.

The budget for Industrial Technologies Program has decreased dramatically in recent years. The Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for Industrial Technologies was $45.6 million, an $11.3 million reduction from the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation. By comparison, appropriated levels as recently as Fiscal Year 2000 were as high as $175 million. These funding levels reflect a dramatic shift in priorities away from industrial efficiency R&D. H.R. 3775 works to restore this program and ensure continued gains in industrial energy efficiency and environmental performance through collaborative research and development.

Endorsing groups include the National Association of Manufacturers, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America and the Association of Materials Manufacturing Excellence.

From CQ:

After negotiations with key Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday he was prepared to seek a conference with the House on energy policy legislation.

“The Speaker wants to go to conference. I want to go to conference,” Reid, D-Nev., said on the floor Friday. “We know we can’t do a bill unless we include the Republicans in it.”

The unanimous consent to move to conference was blocked on a procedural basis by John Cornyn, R-Texas, Friday afternoon because many senators were traveling, but no objections were expected this week.

That said, the battle over CAFE standards remains strong, with the auto industry lobbying hard for the weaker Hill-Terry language (HR 2927). Last week GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner met with Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council, Nicole Nason, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and EPA officials, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally is expected in DC this week.

Meanwhile, the natural gas industry is calling for expanded drilling:

The American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and seven other trade associations representing natural gas producers, pipelines, and consumers jointly expressed strong concern Oct. 19 about US House energy legislation that they believe would reduce instead of increase domestic gas supplies. . . . The 2005 Energy Policy Act contains several provisions to encourage production in frontier areas, including ultradeep water, ultradeep gas, and offshore Alaska, which HR 3221 seeks to repeal, they said.

The intial co-sponsors of Lieberman and Warner’s America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191) are:

• Sen Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
• Sen Bob Casey (D-Penn.)
• Sen Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)
• Sen Susan Collins (R-Maine)
• Sen Liddy Dole (R-NC)
• Sen Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
• Sen Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Cardin, Casey, and Klobuchar are also co-sponsors of Sanders-Boxer (S. 309). Casey and Harkin are co-sponsors of Binagaman-Specter (S. 1766). Coleman, Collins, and Klobuchar are co-sponsors of McCain-Lieberman (S. 280).

Casey is the author of the Climate Change Worker Assistance Program provision in S 2191.

Coleman is the chair of the Senate biofuels caucus.

Harkin is the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Klobuchar is the author of the Greenhouse Gas Registry provision in S 2191 (introduced as S 1387).

More on the Lieberman-Warner legislation....

PG&E

We believe America’s Climate Security Act provides a solid starting point for constructively advancing a comprehensive, national response to and policy on climate change. Senators Lieberman and Warner have developed a thoughtful proposal that recognizes the urgent need for action by designing a program to achieve significant emission reductions from all sectors of the economy.

From Nature, Sen. Barbara Boxer:

Today will be remembered as a turning point in the fight against global warming. We have the framework here. Every single issue that any one could raise about global warming has been raised in this bill, giving us the perfect place to start.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is more critical:

“The problem is even worse than many have previously suggested,” Sanders said. “If anything, the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January, the strongest legislation introduced in Congress to address global warming, is probably too conservative to address the problem. It is likely that we should be even more aggressive in our targets and timetables for mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”

In a Senate floor statement, Sanders cited the views of major environmental groups on the Lieberman-Warner legislation.

Environmental organizations have begun responding to the release of the Lieberman-Warner legislation.

Friends of the Earth

Global warming legislation expected to be introduced tomorrow could provide giveaways worth hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to polluting industries, according to an analysis of a draft of the legislation conducted by Friends of the Earth. . . . The Friends of the Earth analysis found that the coal industry in particular stands to benefit from this legislation, precisely because it is currently the industry most responsible for global warming pollution. Depending on market conditions, the coal industry could receive permits worth up to $231 billion in the first year alone, 48 percent of the total permit allocation.

Environmental Defense

Lieberman and Warner have paved the way for a historic committee vote on a bill that promises to make great strides toward climate security and economic growth. Thanks to their thoughtful approach we’re moving beyond talk and quickly toward action. . . . The emissions goal is aggressive in the short-term and that will have a real impact on investment decisions made now. Most scientists say we need to cut U.S. emissions by about 80 percent, and we continue to believe that deeper reductions are needed long-term. This bill is a good start in that direction, and we will continue to work toward those longer term reductions.

Sierra Club

The bill is a significant political step forward for the U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as introduced still falls short what is demanded by the science and the public to meet the challenge of global warming. . . .The Lieberman-Warner bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to catastrophic changes to the climate. Polluters should pay for what they do and any bill must allocate allowances for the public benefit, not private windfalls.

The Sierra Club finds that the bill falls short of the standards of scientific integrity and economic fairness, calling for an economy-wide cap of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and full auction of emissions allowances.

NRDC

Although this bill is a strong start, NRDC supports changes that would improve the bill by ensuring that emission reductions keep pace with the science, and by reducing free allocations and directing additional resources to provide more support for critical program features, including consumer and low-income protections, safeguards for affected workers, and faster deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions.

Clean Air Watch

From our standpoint, it’s a good-faith political compromise, but it seems very unlikely to go very far unless President Bush does an unexpected 180 degree reversal. And it’s got some very significant warts.

Clean Air Watch criticizes the giveaway of emissions credits and notes that the actual reductions in the bill come out to about 51% of overall US emissions by 2050 because the cap is not economy-wide.

Earthjustice

We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership on global warming. . . . While we commend several of the improvements Senators Lieberman and Warner made to their bill, such as increasing the 2020 target to a 15% reduction in covered sectors and recognizing the vital check-and-balance role that enforcement must play in any climate bill, their bill must be strengthened in some vital areas.

Earthjustice calls for economy-wide coverage, an 80% reduction (not 51-63% reduction) by 2050, increased auction, and the restoration of funding for international relief.

Nature Conservancy

The Lieberman-Warner bill offers a strong starting point for action. . . . We are especially pleased by the commitment to conservation and protecting wildlife and habitat reflected in the bill. Senators Warner and Lieberman have been leaders in recognizing the magnitude of the challenge climate change poses for the natural world and for all of us.

League of Conservation Voters

Today’s introduction of America’s Climate Security Act marks an important step by this Congress to address the urgent problem of global warming. We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership and for their bipartisan commitment to moving America closer to real solutions to this very urgent problem. . . . We will continue to work to increase the reduction targets and the sectors covered in both the near and long term. We will also work to significantly increase the amount of allowances toward our goal of 100 percent auction, while ensuring that the auction revenues go to directly helping consumers, to increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and to helping impacted populations adapt to global warming both at home and abroad.

National Wildlife Federation

This is a bipartisan breakthrough on global warming that takes us a giant step closer to a historic vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for drafting a strong bill to protect people and wildlife from global warming.

As reported at Gristmill, Sens. Lieberman and Warner intend to submit the draft of their cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), today. The legislation incorporated suggestions from stakeholders to adjust some figures from the draft outline released at the beginning of August. Notably, the 2020 reduction from 2005 emissions levels is increased from 10% to 15% (the Sanders-Boxer target), and the peak auction percentage (reached in 2036) is increased from 52% to 73%. There are numerous other components, adjustments, and details.

How does Lieberman-Warner stack up to the Sanders-Lautenberg principles or the Step It Up 2 provisions?

Sanders-Lautenberg

• CAP: The 2020 target is as strong as Sanders-Boxer, but the 2050 target is much weaker (67% by 2050 instead of 80%) and only 75% of emissions are regulated; there are numerous explicit provisions to loosen controls to protect the economy but none to change them to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHG; however, it calls for a report every three years looks at both economic and environmental impacts
• POLLUTER PAYS: The bill does not transition quickly to a full auction. Spending of auction revenues is generally in line with Sanders-Lautenberg, though large amounts go to CCS development
• ENCOURAGE STATE LEADERSHIP: The bill explicitly rewards states with stricter standards than the federal cap
• ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: The bill includes green building standards and low-carbon fuel provisions, among others, but does not require new coal plants to have CCS
• NO LOOPHOLES AND LIMITED OFFSETS: The annual caps may be temporarily increased by as much as 20% if later caps are tightened and companies pay interest on “borrowed” allowances; offsets are limited to 15% of allowances and are held to the Sanders-Lautenberg standard

Step It Up 2

• GREEN JOBS: There is some funding for green jobs, but not 5 million by 2015
• EFFICIENCY: There is not a federal efficiency standard of 20% greater efficiency by 2015
• CAP: As decribed above, the cap is not economy-wide, and is 15% by 2020 and 67% by 2050, not 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
• NO NEW COAL: There is not a moratorium on new coal plants without CCS

Full comparison of October release with the original August draft below the jump.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to a Congressional briefing featuring the Solar Decathlon and the value of incorporating high-performance “green” design in buildings. The briefing will also discuss how provisions in the pending energy bill can help improve efficient homes. Buildings account for more than 40 percent of annual U.S. energy use and are, in turn, responsible for more than one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Because buildings last many decades, the economic, environmental and health impacts of inefficient building design are long-lasting.

The Solar Decathlon-taking place on the National Mall October 12 – 20- is an exciting competition in which 20 teams of college and university students from across the country, including four international teams, compete to design, build, and operate the most attractive, effective, and energy-efficient solar-powered house. The house must also be able to power an electric vehicle as well as be “off the grid.” These solar homes are powerful, comfortable, and stylish. They are relaxed and elegant, wasting neither space nor energy. High efficiency solar houses like these are using readily available technology and designs-not futuristic concepts. But policies like stronger building codes and the solar provisions in the energy bill are essential in helping make our homes greener and much more efficient-saving both energy and money.

• Rhone Resch, Executive Director, Solar Energy Industries Association
• Dr. Kaye Brubaker, Associate Professor, University of Maryland
• Bill Nesmith, Assistant Director for Conservation, Oregon Department of Energy
• Lowell Ungar, Director of Policy, Alliance to Save Energy

In addition to discussing the Solar Decathlon, the briefing will address the role of codes and standards in building energy efficiency. Measures to promote increased residential building energy efficiency are included in the House energy bill HR 3221, Title IX, Sec. 9031. “Encouraging Stronger Building Codes.” The briefing panel will also discuss the solar provisions in the energy bill, including tax incentives for solar energy.

This briefing is open to the public and no reservations are required. For more information, please contact Fred Beck at [email protected] or 202.662.1892.

From CQ Greensheets and Detroit News reports on movement on the inter-chamber energy bill negotiating process:

• The controversial standard legislation – fuel economy (CAFE) and renewable fuels (RFS) from the Senate bill (HR 6), and renewable energy (RPS) from the House bill (HR 3221) – “will be worked out behind closed doors between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid”, with staff-level discussions this week
• Opponents of the CAFE legislation in the Senate bill continue a last-ditch effort to advocate Hill-Terry (HR 2927) and get Senators to switch their votes. The coalition, led by Energy and Commerce chair John Dingell, includes:
  • Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
  • Blue Dog Coalition
  • American Farm Bureau Federation
  • American Recreation Coalition
  • Associated General Contractors
  • International Professional Rodeo Association
  • Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors Association
  • Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
• Dingell’s staff is meeting with the leadership staff for the closed-door negotiations, but he is leaving the door open to blocking the energy bill: “I’m not foreclosing any option. I don’t make the jungle. I just live there.” He also said that trying to get a bill completed before the scheduled October 26 recess “is to invite a disaster.”
  From CQ Greensheets:

  Energy Talks to Begin, But Not on 3 Key Issues By Coral Davenport

  Negotiations on a major energy bill begin Monday — but Democratic leaders have already drawn fire for taking the three biggest and most contentious issues off the table. The three issues those leaders cite as their top priorities in crafting new energy policy — raising vehicle fuel economy standards and setting nationwide mandates for renewable fuels and electricity — will not be up for discussion as Energy Committee staffers from both chambers and parties convene to start hammering out a compromise bill.

  Instead, those highly controversial provisions — which, if enacted, would signal a new direction in U.S. energy policy — will be worked out behind closed doors between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., say congressional aides.

  Whatever bill emerges from the staff and leadership talks will then have to be sent back to both chambers for passage.

  Each of those initiatives passed one chamber, but not the other, this summer as part of a larger energy bill. The Senate passed a measure (HR 6) that would significantly raise fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks and would mandate production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. The House bill (HR 3221) would require 15 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020.

  But lawmakers question whether one bill containing all three contentious measures could make it through both chambers this year, especially as the fuel economy and renewable electricity provisions have divided Democrats, making a majority uncertain. Analysts say that appears to be the reason congressional leaders are keeping those pieces off the negotiating table, and trying to engineer the bill themselves — a strategy that has drawn plenty of criticism from Republicans.

  “I think the notion of establishing a negotiation framework where the three biggest elements of the plan are off the table is a fraud,” said Chris Tucker, communications director for House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

  Many Republicans may not even attend the initial negotiations, in order to protest their inability to weigh in on the three key pieces. “At this time it’s unclear if Republicans are going to be attending talks on Monday,” said Matt LeTourneau, a spokesman for Senate Energy Committee Republicans. “One of our sticking points is that certain items are off the table. The issues that took up so much time on the Senate floor and House floor are not open for discussion.”

  Charges of partisan perfidy in energy negotiations are not new: In 2003, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House energy committees, Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin of Louisiana, privately drafted a proposal for consideration by conferees on a major energy bill — a process one Democratic aide called “the illusion of inclusion.” The plan eventually won conference approval amid partisan bickering, but the bill ultimately failed.

  Fuel Economy

  While key issues may be off staffers’ negotiating table, that doesn’t appear to have deterred a major lobbying push on at least one of them: raising corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards.

  Efforts to legislate better vehicle mileage have been stalled for more than 20 years, but this summer’s Senate energy package included a provision that would require manufacturers to raise vehicle fleet averages to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles.

  Pelosi has said she strongly supports incorporating that provision in the final energy deal, but it has met with powerful pushback from a broad group of opponents, including The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the influential Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative House Democrats. In the past, these groups have pushed against moves to raise CAFE standards entirely — but now they are pushing instead for a more modest House bill (HR 2927) by Reps. Baron P. Hill, D-Ind., and Lee Terry, R-Neb. Their bill would leave separate regulations in place for cars and “light trucks,” such as sport utility vehicles, while setting the overall fuel economy at 32 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by 2022.

  That has brought along the support of groups that have previously opposed all efforts to tighten fuel economy standards, but who now say they would support a raise with separate standards for cars and light trucks. The push includes influential groups that depend on light trucks to do business, including the American Farm Bureau Federation; the American Recreation Coalition; Associated General Contractors; International Professional Rodeo Association; National Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors; and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. Another key supporter of the Hill-Terry bill is powerful House Energy Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., who has long been a key opponent of any raise in fuel economy standards, but has cosponsored the Hill-Terry measure.

  Counter-lobbying by environmental groups is also in full force. “What this effort really boils down to is nothing more than an 11th-hour attempt by a boatload of lobbyists to scuttle a boosted fuel-economy standard that the Senate already passed,” said Deron Lovaas, a vehicles expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

  But staffers say the Democratic leadership’s “off-the-table” strategy will likely keep that proposal out of discussions and the final product. “The chances for Hill-Terry getting into the mix are very slim,” said a Democratic leadership aide.

  From Detroit News:

  Doors close on energy bill

  WASHINGTON – Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is disappointed a House-Senate committee won’t tackle legislation to improve the fuel economy of the nation’s vehicles.

  Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has chosen Democratic leaders to write an energy bill – which would include provisions on fuel economy – behind closed doors, rather than through a conference committee of House and Senate negotiators. She cited Senate Republican opposition to appointing members.

  “We cannot have a situation where if they don’t give us a conference, we don’t have a bill,” Pelosi said. “With or without a conference, we will proceed.”

  However, Dingell, D-Dearborn, said conference committees “frankly work and (have) produced good legislation.” He said conference committees allow legislators of both parties to work together to produce a compromise that will make good law.

  “It ought to be permitted to work, and the speaker has chosen otherwise,” Dingell said in an interview Friday. “I’m not going into this with a chip on my shoulder. I intend to try and work with her to achieve a good bill.”

  In June, the Senate passed a bill 65-27 that hikes corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, 40 percent – to a combined standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Automakers have argued that bill would cost them billions. Dingell and the automakers have backed a House bill that’s softer than the Senate’s and gives automakers more time to comply.

  In a formal conference committee, Dingell would have more leverage to strike a compromise.

  Now, “Nancy Pelosi can write a bill in a dark room on the back of a napkin,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, said on Friday.

  Dingell wouldn’t divulge whether he would mount an effort to kill an energy bill that was too harsh on automakers. “I’m not foreclosing any option,” he said. “I don’t make the jungle. I just live there.”

  Dingell stressed too that he has not been cut out of the process. His staff will meet today with Democratic leadership staff to discuss the energy bill.

  Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesman, said Friday there would be “talks” at the staff level this week and that the House speaker – who supports the Senate measure – hopes to have a bill completed before year’s end.

  Trying to get a bill completed in “two weeks is to invite a disaster,” Dingell said. He said the Senate bill “has serious problems in the House.”

  More than 170 House members have backed a rival fuel economy bill – dubbed “Hill-Terry” after its sponsors – that would increase fuel economy mandates at least 28 percent by 2022 to between 32 mpg and 35 mpg.

  Auto lobbyists are growing worried that a bill similar to the Senate bill might be passed before the end of the session.

  Privately, they have been lobbying some senators to reconsider their support of the bill that passed in June.

Democratic Senators Bob Menendez (NJ), Jack Reed (RI), John Kerry (MA), Russ Feingold (WI), Chris Dodd (CT) and Dick Durbin (IL) wrote last week to Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, to weigh in on the draft plan of the legislation the two are developing.

They mirror the previous praise by Democrats on the subcommittee in their letter:

We write today to congratulate you on your leadership in addressing global warming. The outline of proposed legislation that you distributed last month is an important start and your efforts to forge a bipartisan bill and attempt to pass a meaningful climate change bill this Congress deserve praise and recognition.

They go on to express some concerns, though without the vehemence of the Kit Bond’s conservative criticism:

• Calling for a 80% reduction by 2050 with specific and aggressive interim targets, as opposed to the 70% target in the draft
• Reiterating opposition to “safety valve” legislation like that in Bingaman-Specter
• Criticizing the degree to which free allocations of emissions credits are given to the fossil fuel sector
• Calling for more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy: “take some of the considerable resources generated by the auction process and devote them to further research and incentives for renewable energy . . . make the bill more balanced by devoting a larger share of the allowance value to public purposes, including support for energy efficiency and renewables”

Toyota is now responding to NRDC’s challenge to drop its opposition to the Markey-Platts CAFE standard increase (since echoed by UCS and Ed Markey, and written up by Tom Friedman):

There are various bills before Congress that would mandate a new target of 35 mpg by 2020 and require both cars and trucks to meet that standard. Our engineers tell us the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible. Toyota spends $23 million every day on research and development but, at this point, the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.

Toyota has long supported an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Moreover, Toyota has always exceeded federal fuel economy requirements. We are continuously striving to improve our fuel economy, regardless of federal mandates.

Toyota currently supports a proposal known as the Hill-Terry bill, HR 2927, that would set a new standard of up to 35 mpg by 2022 (up to a 40% increase) and maintain separate categories for cars and light trucks. Although this won’t be easy, we believe it is achievable.

House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee chairman Ed Markey responds: “Apparently the only thing that separates Toyota from the ‘impossible dream’ of 35 miles per gallon here in the U.S., is a flight across the Pacific Ocean,” as Toyota meets Japan’s (and Europe’s) fuel efficiency standards of greater than 40 MPG, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.