CLIMATE: Lieberman, Warner on hunt for one vote in subcommittee (10/29/2007)
Darren Samuelsohn, E&E Daily senior reporter
A Senate subcommittee is on the verge of passing legislation this week that would cap heat-trapping emissions in the United States from more than three quarters of the economy.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) are lead cosponsors of America's Climate Security Act, a bill tentatively scheduled for a Thursday markup.
Their bill, S. 2191, picked up momentum last week when Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) declared his support. Sponsors now need one more vote to get the bill out of their seven-member Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee on global warming.
"They're going to find a way," predicted Tim Profeta, a former senior aide to Lieberman who now runs Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Lieberman and Warner are making appeals both to their left and right, and it is not yet clear which direction might help them win a majority.
Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are not satisfied with the bill, arguing it should make even tougher emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2050 that better line up with scientific recommendations. Sanders also wants 100 percent of the cap-and-trade program's allowances distributed via an auction in 2025, rather than 2036 as the legislation currently requires.
As this week progresses, both Lautenberg and Sanders are sure to hear from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). The chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is also an advocate of tighter emission limits, but she must face the political reality that compromise may keep the bill from getting stuck in subcommittee.
Chances are slim Lieberman and Warner will win a vote from the right considering the general philosophy of the underlying bill. Even so, Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson (Ga.) and John Barrosso (Wyo.), both subcommittee members, have signaled an interest in dealing with climate change. Their comments have sparked interest in alternatives to the Lieberman-Warner bill.
Isakson last week said he wants a climate bill to include greater incentives for nuclear power. And Barrosso demanded greater recognition of the need to use Wyoming's abundant coal supplies -- even if the United States limits its carbon emissions.
One industry source tracking the climate debate said the Republicans will be watched closely as the debate unfolds.
"Are they treating it as a matter of legislation as opposed to a matter of philosophy?" he wondered. "Do they start to telegraph what it takes for getting their support?"
Jenga anyone?
Warner told reporters last week he didn't know which way the bill would move as it proceeds through the EPW subcommittee and full committee.
"We've got to set a goal of trying to do a balancing act between well-intentioned senators on both sides," he said.
Also last week, Warner said he would support moving his legislation out of the EPW panel before the United Nations opens climate negotiations in early December in Bali, Indonesia. This would show that "action is on its way" from the U.S. government, he said.
Electric utility and petroleum industry lobbyist Scott Segal said the Warner-Lieberman camp must be careful not to lose their current crop of supporters as they search out more votes.
"It's like a game of legislative Jenga," he said. "Remove one piece and others may fall out of place."
Looking ahead to the full EPW Committee debate, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) last week spelled out several of his own criteria for a climate bill. In appearance at the National Press Club on Friday, the former Ohio governor said he wants to address climate change through loan guarantees, tax policy and government procurement programs to boost low- and zero-carbon energy technologies.
Voinovich also said he is suspicious of the Lieberman-Warner bill's costs to the economy and questioned whether environmental groups are serious about adopting a bill if it means they can't use climate change as a fundraising issue anymore. "Cap-and-trade has become kind of like the Holy Grail," he said.
Several other Senate Republicans long in opposition to mandatory emission caps won't be changing their vote.
"Definitely not," Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said in an interview. "I'm not going to support something that tries to mandate results that science can't achieve."
Bond also said he is weighing strategies should the Lieberman-Warner bill start to move. "If they are successful in forcing it down the throats of the Midwest and the other coal-generating areas, I hope there's a realistic safety valve," he said.
Asked to elaborate, Bond said he would consider pushing for a limit on the price of carbon as an alternative to the Lieberman-Warner plan that sets up a Federal Reserve-like board to oversee the new greenhouse gas market.
Appearing on the Senate floor, EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Friday offered his own attack on the science linking humans to global warming. Inhofe vowed to lead the opposition campaign against any global warming legislation.
"I categorically will oppose legislation or initiatives that will devastate our economy as well as those that will cost jobs simply to make symbolic gestures purely to start us down the ruinous economic path of energy rationing," Inhofe said. "I believe such measures will be defeated because the approach is politically unsustainable."
Bridging coalitions
This week's markup won't be the first time the Senate has voted on mandatory carbon limits.
In 2002, the Senate EPW Committee under then Chairman Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) voted 10-9 in favor of a bill that would have set limits on CO2 emissions from power plants (E&E Daily, June 28, 2002). The bill never reached the floor.
The Senate voted two other times on a different climate bill sponsored by Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). It won 43 votes in 2003 and 38 in 2005.
Sources tracking the climate debate say lawmakers seem more engaged in the details this time around. At last week's EPW Committee hearing on the Lieberman-Warner bill, questioners pressed for details on allocations and offsets, as well as how to reward "early actor" companies that have been involved in climate programs dating back to the early 1990s.
"People are acting like this bill has a chance at passage," Profeta said. "That means you will have a lot of brinkmanship. A lot of claims. A lot of absolutes. It also means if it passes [out of committee], it will have a serious chance of moving."
Boxer last week outlined plans to hold two hearings and two staff-led briefings after the Lieberman-Warner bill moves out of subcommittee. She declined to answer questions about how the legislation would change as it moves.
But she insisted the threats posed by climate change demand movement on Capitol Hill.
"What's important is I get this legislation going," she said. "The window is closing on this."
Supporters of mandatory carbon limits point to the growing number of Republicans who previously voted against carbon limits but are now cosponsors on climate bills, including Warner and Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Elizabeth Dole (N.C.). Environmental Defense circulated an informal whip count last week showing 53 senators who have signed on to legislation that places mandatory caps on emissions.
"We've seen the complete spectrum shift on this," said Jeremy Symons, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's climate change program. "I think the traditional opponents on this issue are on their heels. There's clear momentum to move forward from all bipartisan directions."
Looking ahead to the Senate floor, sources say that informal talks are already under way between the Lieberman-Warner camp and proponents of a climate bill cosponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Specter. The Bingaman-Specter bill brings with it critical support from labor unions and several major electric utilities, including Duke, Exelon Corp. and American Electric Power Corp.
"The challenge is going to be, is there a moment where they can take a half step toward each other and hang on to their constituencies?" asked Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy and an advocate for the Bingaman-Specter legislation. "If they can, you can pass a bill."
But others aren't so optimistic. Segal predicted a climate bill won't be done until 2009 or 2010 given regional splits on Capitol Hill, the slow pace on this issue in the House and President Bush's opposition to mandatory curbs on U.S. emissions.
"My sense is we have several years of legislating ahead of us before we get a bill to the president's desk," he said.
Schedule: The markup hasn't been officially noticed, but Lieberman and Warner aides say it will take place Thursday. Time, location TBA.
|
