Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/31/2007 at 06:46PM
In this morning’s
markup,
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved S. 1785,
which has the following straightforward text:
Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is amended by adding
at the end the following: (f) Waivers of Preemption-
- PENDING REQUESTS- Not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this subsection, but in no case
later than September 30, 2007, the Administrator shall issue to
the Governor of each applicable State a decision on each request
for a waiver of preemption under subsection (b) that—
- has been submitted by the State; and
- is pending as of the date of enactment of this subsection.
- SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS- With respect to a
request for a waiver of preemption under subsection (b) (including
such a request submitted by a State that has adopted and enforced
certain standards as described in section 177) that is submitted
by a State after the date of enactment of this subsection, not
later than 180 days after the date on which the Administrator
receives the request, the Administrator shall issue to the
Governor of the State a decision on whether to grant the waiver.
It passed by a party-line 10-9 vote.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/31/2007 at 04:28PM
On July 30, Speaker Pelosi set the agenda for her energy independence
initiative, which she had originally hoped to complete by July 4th. The
legislative package will be introduced to the floor in two parts:
- the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007
(HR
2776)
from the Ways and Means Committee, reported out at the end of June
- and the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and
Consumer Protection Act (HR
3221),
which needs to be signed off by the relevant committees
HR 2776 provides tax incentives for renewable electricity
production, biofuels, efficient appliances, plug-in hybrids, and
renewable energy bonds. It pays for these incentives buy reducing oil
and gas royalties and closing the “Hummer” tax loophole.
HR 3221 is a wide-ranging
omnibus, under the jurisdiction
of the following committees:
- Education and Labor (Title I: green jobs)
- Foreign Affairs (Title II: foreign assistance and trade)
- Small Business (Title III: small business
sustainability initiative)
- Science and Technology (Title IV: research
funding—HR 364, HR
906, HR 1933, HR 2773, HR
2774,
HR 2304, HR 2313)
- Agriculture (Title V: biofuels)
- Oversight and Government Reform (Title VI: carbon-neutral government)
- Natural Resources (Title VII: Energy Policy
Act of 2005 reforms, changes in oil and gas royalties, wind energy,
CCS, wildlife, oceans)
- Transportation and Infrastructure (Title
VIII: public transportation, highways,
shipping, public buildings)
- Energy and Commerce (Title IX: appliance, lighting, and building
efficiency, smart grid, renewable fuel infrastructure, plug-in
hybrids)
- Armed Services (it’s unclear which components are under its
jurisdiction)
All amendments to HR 3221 must be
introduced
by Wednesday afternoon. The Rules Committee will
convene
Thursday at 3 PM to establish the debate rules and timetable.
After the amendment process and ratification, the package will then go
into conference to be reconciled with the Senate energy bill,
SA
1502,
passed mid-June.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/30/2007 at 06:23PM
From CQ.com: Broader Policy Overhaul May Be in Store as Senate Takes Up
Farm Bill.
Summary:
- Senate will take up bill after August recess; making the September 30
deadline unlikely
- Sen. Harkin, Ag Committee chair, plans much higher land-conservation
program funding than in House bill (HR 2419)
- Harkin and Grassley (R-Iowa) plan to cap annual payments to $250,000
from current cap of $360,000; HR 2419 has no
cap
- Sen. Lugar (R-Ind.) supports FARM21, Ron
Kind’s proposal (H.AMDT 700)
- Sens. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Brown (D-Ohio) introduced the Farm Safety
Net Improvement Act last week, which ties “counter-cyclical” payments
(aka crop subsidy payments) to revenue (price times yield) instead of
the target price (see the American Farmland Trust
page)
- Nutrition advocates are looking for better than the $4 billion
increase in the House bill
- Tax provisions to pay for the Senate bill will generate Republican
resistance
Full text below the fold.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/30/2007 at 01:14PM
Last week, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) presented the Containing and
Managing Climate Change Costs Efficiently Act (S.
1874), a piece of
legislation authored by Joe Lieberman’s former environmental advisor,
Timothy Profeta, who now heads the Nicholas Institute for Environmental
Policy Solutions at Duke
University.
The proposal would establish the Carbon Market Efficiency
Board which would
oversee the emissions trading market established by cap-and-trade
legislation. The board would operate much like the Federal Reserve
Board, providing information on price and low-emission technology
investment trends to Congress and the public, and it would adjust the
price of emissions permits when a “market correction” is needed. The
first measure is to expand companies’ ability to “bank” permits, or
borrow permits against future year reductions. The second measure, to be
used if high prices are not relieved by the first measure, is to add a
slightly larger number of permits to the market. This temporary increase
would be compensated for by reducing available permits in a later year,
when more options have been developed.
Profeta testified about the proposal in last week’s hearing. His
white
paper
goes into further detail.
The bill is intended to be folded into the Lieberman-Warner package to
be presented as a discussion draft at the end of the week.
John Warner (R-Va.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Blanche Lincoln
(D-Ark.) are cosponsoring the bill, in a bipartisan show of strength by
pro-business Senators. [The League of Conservation
Voters/Chamber
of
Commerce
scores for the senators are: Warner 14%/100%, Graham 29%/92%, Landrieu
43%/75%, Lincoln 43%/67%. By way of comparison, Lieberman is 71%/44%.]
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/27/2007 at 04:56PM
By 231-191, the House
passed the farm bill (HR 2419) today. Highlights:
- The bill funds the energy title, which funds biofuels research and
development, energy efficiency programs and renewable-energy projects,
by reversing $6.1 billion over ten years of the offshore drilling
royalty payments mistakenly granted to oil and gas companies
- The bill found additional funding for food stamps by by ending a
practice known as “earnings stripping,” which lets foreign-owned
companies shift income to a country with lower tax rates, delivering
$7.8 billion over 10 years
- The Senate is expected to start debating its version of the
legislation after the August recess. Current programs expire Sept. 30
and it is unlikely Congress will be able to complete action on a new
five-year bill by then. Instead, a short-term extension of the law is
likely to be necessary.
- The $5 million per year Community Food Projects program to fight food
insecurity by funding projects that promote the self-sufficiency of
low-income communities was zeroed
out.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/26/2007 at 12:43PM
At today’s hearing on the California
waiver,
EPA administrator Stephen Johnson refused to
condemn or even comment on the Department of Transportation’s lobbying
against the waiver. He also refused to state whether or not the
administration is opposed to the request.
In his testimony, he admitted speaking to the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation, Mary E. Peters, at the beginning of the
comment period, and obfuscated over what they discussed. He admitted
that they discussed reaching out to her “constituency”, which when
pressed by Sen. Boxer, he understood to mean governors and members
“particularly interested” in transportation. He avoided saying what the
Secretary’s intentions or views were and whether he recommended the
“constituency” should send in comments.
His new excuse for not making a decision on the waiver request is the
“voluminous” amount of comments. He was understandably accused of
footdragging by the Democrats on the panel.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/23/2007 at 10:05PM
Tomorrow’s global warming
hearing,
led by Joe Lieberman, will be a prelude to the cap-and-trade legislation
now being written by his and John Warner’s staffers. This bill will be
the default Senate cap-and-trade bill unless matters dramatically
change. See CQ Green
Sheets
for more.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/23/2007 at 09:28PM
From The Hill: Lobbyists face energy bill
dilemma.
In short, oil and gas lobbyists, long in the
GOP camp, are struggling to kill Titles 1 and
2 of Nick Rahall’s bill (H.R. 2337), which repeal the massive tax breaks
for oil companies in the Republican Energy Policy Act of 2005. Their
best friends on the Democratic side are Blue Dogs Charles Melancon of
Louisiana and Jim Matheson of Utah. Also in question is whether there
will end up being time for a vote on the legislation, with the farm bill
(with which agribusiness is happy enough), commerce, justice and science
(CJS) appropriations, transportation appropriations, and children’s
health insurance also on the docket before the August recess.
By Jim Snyder July 24, 2007 One of the toughest decisions a lobbyist
makes is when exactly to lobby against something. Do you try to stop a
bill in committee, marshal opposition on the floor, or wait for the
relative secrecy of a congressional conference committee to let loose
the arrows in your quiver?
It may be easier to stop an offending provision before the Government
Printing Office ink is dry. But sometimes it’s better to allow an
opponent an early win, especially if one of your opponents is the
Speaker of the House, before a final defeat.
Oil and gas lobbyists, playing defense all session, are weighing how
hard to push their backers on Capitol Hill to draw a line in the sand
on energy legislation.
On the floor, House members this week take up two major spending
bills— transportation and commerce, justice, and science (CJS)— as
well as a farm bill that, in contrast to the energy bill, has broad
support among industry lobbyists. The Senate takes up a higher
education reauthorization bill.
Pelosi’s Leadership
But behind the scenes, lobbyists describe a furious effort under way
to shape energy legislation in the final stretch before August recess.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week met with “oil patch”
members, often the most conservative elements of her diverse caucus,
to try to smooth over intra-party differences that are delaying one of
the party’s biggest priorities.
Pelosi urged the members to try to work with Rep. Nick Rahall
(D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, to find
compromise on his energy bill, one of several measures likely to be
linked together on the floor.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/23/2007 at 03:31PM
With a vote on CAFE legislation in the House
expected to come next week, the Pew Campaign for Fuel
Efficiency
today released new bipartisan polling in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Michigan that pulled from more
than 30 congressional districts. The surveys found overwhelming voter
support for the U.S. House of Representatives to pass
CAFE legislation at least as strong as those
passed by the U.S. Senate in June. One particular district surveyed was
John Dingell’s, Michigan-15.
The polls compared the elements of the Markey-Platts bill (HR 1506) with
those of the industry-supported Hill-Terry bill (HR 2927), and found
overwhelming, across-the-board support for Markey-Platts across all
demographic groups (partisanship, income, type of car, age, etc.).
Voters just don’t buy the industry arguments against
CAFE standards, believing that cars will
continue to be safe and affordable and that the American auto industry
and auto workers will be better off as they will be forced to innovate.
As Bill McInturff, the GOP pollster said in
the
briefing,
“There’s really strong Republican support for higher standards, do it
quicker, make it binding.” Voters see this as an economic,
environmental, national security issue, and would feel better about
Congress and their own representative if strong legislation is passed.
Voters in Dingell’s
district
look like the voters elsewhere.
The pollsters deliberately avoided global warming because they see it as
a partisan issue.