Industry Experts Discuss Senate Climate Bill

Senator Boxer KerryAs we round the corner into October, climate legislation is making its way into the Senate with debates likely to start over the next two weeks. Senators John Kerry(D-Mass) and Barbara Boxer (D-California) have released a first draft of their legislation. Today, I tuned into a webinar hosted by The Energy Collective pairing the opinions of some industry minds on some of the finer points of the bill and what we can expect to see over the next few months as it continues to materialize. Moderated by writer and political advocate Marc Gunther, the panelists included:

  • Michael Zimmer–National co-chair on ABA Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Resources Committee
  • Manik Roy–Vice President of  Federal Government Outreach for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
  • Jesse Jenkins–Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute

The panel commented on some of differences between the Senate bill and its counterpart, Waxman Markey, that was passed in the House. To start, the bill raises the bar on mitigating greenhouse gases calling for an emissions reduction of 20% of 2005 levels by 2020 compared to a 17% reduction mandated by the House. Natural gas found large new incentives for utilities to switch from coal-fired power generation. Though a sticking point for some environmentalists, at the end of the day this is one of the compromises that makes short-term results possible. We have to accept that natural gas is abundant and cheap while still being drastically more efficient and cleaner than coal. The bill also introduces some modest support for nuclear power with funding for worker training programs as well as research and development for safety and waste disposal. All panelists agreed that this will be only the beginning of nuclear’s presence in the bill,  likely used as a means to sway the Republican votes necessary to reach a 60-vote resolution. As of now, it is estimated that only 40 votes provide unwavering support for the legislation.

All panelists agreed that there were still numerous things that needed to be clarified in the 800+ page bill including how carbon allowances will be allocated as well as the complicated system of “border adjustments” or regulations that try to minimize situations of unintended advantage to countries without climate policies like India and China. Roy affirmed that “carbon leakage”, or the migration of business to developing countries with less stringent regulation, is a very serious concern. He also pointed out the degree of red tape coordination involved in the bill’s creation given that there are six different senate committees that are contributing portions text.

Despite the imminent uphill battle, the general undertone of the response seemed positive and cautiously optimistic. Zimmer pointed out that a number of things have changed since the passage of the Waxman Markey bill that are helping to add pressure to getting climate legislation passed. For starters,  the swiftly approaching climate summit in Copenhagen marks an audience with a world that is continually forming expectations that the United States will come to the table with some concrete contributions. Another is the recent ruling of a federal appeals court stating that states have the right to sue coal coal burning utilities for creating a “public nuisance,” potentially opening carbon emitters up to new attacks in the legal system.

According to Roy, “there is a misconception that no legislation means no regulation. This is just not the case.” He noted that 23 states are in some process of creating local-level regulation for emissions along with the fact that the EPA has already issued green house gas reporting rules on up to 12,000 facilities with its implementation process starting soon. Roy seemed to speculate that a growing contingent of politicians and businesses believe that federal level regulation could actually be a safer route then being limited by state governments and a much more aggressive EPA than its Bush-era equivalent. All panelists were focusing their hopes on passage by early 2010.

Photo Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images