© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
Posted on 07/21/2010 2:11:59 PM PDT by neverdem
The Senate climate bill has been at death’s door several times over the past year. But with the days before the August recess quickly slipping away, the case may truly be terminal now.
Kerry and his main partner on the legislation, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), met Tuesday with members of the board of directors of the Edison Electric Institute, who are in Washington for a lobbying campaign on climate legislation.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said he very likely wouldn’t support a bill that focused just on the electric utility industry. “It tends to be a self-defeating process, because if you go for something less than a comprehensive approach, you’re asking for some parts of the country, including my own state, to possibly bear a disproportionate burden without actually solving the problem,” he said. “So that’s a pretty tough sell to me.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has wanted to introduce a sweeping energy and climate bill by next week, and Reid even told POLITICO on Monday night that the package was almost ready to go.
But by Tuesday afternoon, Reid was noncommittal about when a bill would come or what it would contain.
“We’re going to make a decision in the near future,” Reid said, describing plans for a Democratic caucus on the issue Thursday. “We’re really not at a point where I can determine what I think is the best for the caucus and the country at this stage.”
Key advocates for legislation to cap greenhouse gases emitted by power plants are pleading for more time as they try to cut a deal with the industry, but it’s time that Reid doesn’t have as he races to finish other Senate business — including the confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan — while girding for a bruising midterm election.
Meanwhile, swing-vote Democrats and Republicans are still clinging to the fence, if not saying no outright. And President Barack Obama has yet to deploy the kind of whip operation his allies think is necessary if the bill has any chance of notching 60 votes.
“The clock is our biggest enemy,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told reporters Tuesday, shortly after a meeting with several major electric utility industry CEOs who asked for a delay in the floor debate. “Some people know that. We have to figure out what is doable in this short span of time. That’s the test, and we’re going to take a look at that.”
Reid said Tuesday that he’s still contemplating a bill that involves “something on utilities.” And he also continued to look to Republicans, support from some of whom he’ll need to get 60 votes.
“We’re still trying to find a Republican or two or three on energy,” he said. “We haven’t given up on that.”
Perhaps Reid’s biggest stumbling block is the part of his bill dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. After first aiming for a measure covering multiple sectors of the economy (power plants, manufacturers and transportation), Reid agreed to scale back the bill to focus just on electric utilities.
But that strategy isn’t going over well with the power companies.
According to Lieberman, the CEOs — Ted Craver of Edison International; Anthony Earley Jr. of DTE Energy; Tom Farrell of Dominion Resources; Bill Johnson of Progress Energy; Michael G. Morris of American Electric Power; David Ratcliffe of Southern Company; and John Ramil of TECO Energy first asked the senators to resurrect their original bill, introduced in May, that would limit emissions not just from power plants but from manufacturers and transportation fuels, as well.
Short of that, they pressed for similar language friendly to their cause, starting first with a formula they favor for distributing valuable emissions allowances. But going in that direction gets tricky if the Senate bill focuses just on power plants, because there’s a smaller pot of credits to pull from.
“Whether we can replicate that in terms of what we’re doing is what we have to go back and try and find out,” Kerry said.
Electric utilities also want relief from several Clean Air Act rules dealing with smog, soot and mercury, but that demand draws complaints from many environmental groups that see it as an unworthy trade.
“That’s a tough one,” Lieberman said. The utilities “frame it in a different way. They just want a breather. And not an eternal pre-emption. These are all topics of negotiation. That’s what we’re supposed to be doing here.”
Brian Wolff, EEI’s senior vice president of communications, said the power company executives agreed to “continue to work with [Kerry and Lieberman] and in good faith would not comment until we see legislative language.”
According to Lieberman, the power company officials sounded skeptical that the negotiations could be finished in time for a floor debate next week.
“They want to work with us to see if they can negotiate an agreement on a utility-only bill, but as far as they’re concerned, they can’t do it in 10 days, so they’re pleading for more time,” Lieberman said. “And I think that’s something we ought to consider.”
Punting on the climate bill would leave Reid with a big decision. He could opt to move forward next week with more-popular provisions dealing with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, energy tax incentives and a national renewable electricity standard that passed last year, with Republican support, out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Or Reid could wait until Kerry and Lieberman have resolved their talks with the power companies.
Asked Tuesday whether he expected an energy and climate bill to hit the floor next week, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) shrugged and said, “Depends on schedules; depends on what gets passed. Don’t know.”
Republicans also were blunt.
“He’s waiting until we have, like, two or three days to tackle a subject that usually takes seven or eight weeks,” GOP Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander said of Reid. “That makes it very difficult.”
“Can I be very candid with you?” Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) asked. “This whole thing is very cynical. Anybody who’s been in the Senate for any period of time knows there’s no way — no way — an energy bill can get done between now and the election or even now and the end of the year.”
Alexander and Voinovich said Reid would have better luck if he abandoned the climate change provisions and focused just on energy and the oil spill. Even some Democrats are anxious.
“If they’re serious about bringing it up next week, they’ve got to show it soon,” said Bill Wicker, spokesman for Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). “You can’t release it late Friday and expect people to read it and be prepared to debate it on Monday.”
Given the complaints, Kerry and Lieberman seemed prepared for several additional months of debate — possibly even into a lame-duck session after the election.
“This issue is not going away ever until it’s addressed,” Kerry said. “It’s going to have to be addressed correctly at some point in time. So if we’re not about to do that now because we don’t have the right formula or can’t, it’s absolutely going to continue as an issue.”
“Everybody here assumes, including you all, that we’re going to be here in November and December,” Lieberman said. “I know there’s a certain awkwardness in a lame-duck session. But these are big and important issues regarding energy independence, pollution reduction, job creation that requires some time. I hope we’re not going to force ourselves to be constrained by an artificial schedule.”
A former Senate Democratic aide said climate advocates need to start gearing up for 2011, which will require a big push from Obama, Democratic control of the House and support from Senate Republicans to have any chance of success. “The window is definitely almost shut, and if it closes without action in the next few weeks, a lot of advocates will need to take stock about when this could be realistically attempted again,” the former staffer said.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly quoted Sen. Joe Lieberman as saying he didn’t want to be constrained by “an artificial setting” rather than “an artificial schedule.”
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC |
We hear this on every piece of Obama/Peloi/Reid’s radical agenda, then some RINO dumbazz comes along and helps them pass it.
It doesn’t matter the dick head in chief will just executive order the enforcement, in fact already has.
Hey Harry!
Just which “problem” do you believe this bill is “solving”?
Are you ignorant enough to believe you can legislate a change in the climate?
This bill is ONLY a wealth tranfer scheme that shuts down American industry and costs jobs
Exactly! These leftists get everything they want eventually.
Any way you cut it, the consumer is the one who is going to pay should they ever succeed at passing this idiotic legislation. It's a tax.
And the GOP won't have the guts to undo it all.
“It’s the economy, Stupid!” —JAMES CARVILLE, 1992
similar tactic used prior to the Christmas break to get the health bill passed.
first acted like they just couldn’t make it happen, and then stood up as if in a glorious struggle and said they had to get it done.
start with low-key defeatism and then shift into high gear when everyone lulled.
Show of hands — how many reading this actually believes it? I mean, the partisan media shills wouldn’t lie to the public ten times in a row about how this or that agenda item wasn’t going to even make it to a vote, would they? Thanks neverdem.
Obama has got everything he has wanted so far. he could get this Bill through as well. Just make sure that it’s over 2000 Pages & that no one has read it. And tell Americans how great it will be when it passes so that we can all find out whats in it. Piece of cake.
That should be easy. Reid hasn't had any problems yet finding Republicans to help him pass his garbage legislation that's killing our economy.
“Short of that, they pressed for similar language friendly to their cause, starting first with a formula they favor for distributing valuable emissions allowances.”
The problem we have is too many collaborators who want to work with the Nazis. They don’t give a crap because they’ll just pass the cost of Cap & Tax onto consumers. They are as much enemies of freedom as is the fascist rat party. This needs to end one way or another. Either you’re for freedom or against it.
Exactly! That piece in American Spectator about the ruling class had it absolutely right. There's no stopping these creeps until or unless we can get them out.
“as they try to cut a deal with the industry”
As I see it, it’s a win/win deal for the power industry. It won’t cost them a thing. They are, I believe, regulated by Public Utility Commissions. I’ve operated a water company for almost 30 years, and owned a piece of it for several years. The PUCO allows us profits on a percentage basis. They allow us slightly more than 10% profit. So if we sell a certain quantity of water for a dollar, our profit, set by the PUCO, is 10 cents. If suddenly, our costs increase, due to government regulations, and that same quantity of water now has to sell for a dollar and a half, our profit, at 10%, would be 15 cents. And we pass the 35 cent extra cost on to the consumer.
At least that’s the way it appears to me. I have carefully avoided any aspects of bookwork/rate increase applications, etc.. I have my hands full running the plant and system, and being on 24/7/365 call. Haven’t had a vacation in ten years.
Where was that article....looking for it...help.
:’) I’m lazy, otherwise I’d help.
Again I ask: Ask your congressperson:
Since we are trying to become independent from foreign oil, Why would we want to become dependent on foreign carbon credits?
And when they can’t give you an answer.
Petition your congressperson to declare CO2 a non pollutant.
RAWR!
The Equilibrium of the Earth’s Greenhouse Gas Effect has been proven.
The paper is here: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c171tn430x43168v/?p=3d211da283af4ae19d59f421cbacf46b&pi=8
I have a full copy of the paper, and it UTTERLY disproved AGW. The IPCC says that the greenhouse effect is what Arrhenius stated it is back in the 1890’s. It can change depending on the makeup of the atmosphere. In other words that adding more CO2 or DECREASING CO2 could make a difference.
This paper PROVES THAT THEORY WRONG. There is a theoretically derived description of the Greenhouse Gas effect, that is Miskolczi found in looking a a very large number of data sets. The RAW data. Whats more, that theoretical figure MATCHED OBSERVED figures!
I have been trying for days to get this public, not a single reporter has returned calls/emails. The MSM even ones we would consider friendly are ignoring this.
RAWR!!!!!!!!!!!! So FRUSTRATING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
