Energetics Cliff Notes - Friday Edition

• Dave Roberts gets hopeful over the Senate Democrats' caucus yesterday, thinking carbon pricing may be back in the mix.
• Michael Levi discusses the inherent problem in the climate science/climate skeptics debate, as illustrated by the latest poll of climate researchers.
• In a similar vein, Roger Pielke Jr. asks: Do climate back lists matter?
• Weeks after Obama lifted the moratorium on deep-water drilling, he put the cap back on, so to speak. Now a judge has lifted his replaced moratorium.
• Bryan Walsh at TIME thinks the oil spill might be good for environmentalism as a whole.
• Andy Revkin gives us a much-needed reminder of the energy innovation gap (with help from my Professor at Cal, Dan Kammen).
• SciAm interviews Jon Wellinghoff, FERC chairman, on his predictions for the US electrical grid.
• Researchers at MIT continue their quest to use America's vast domestic resources of natural gas as a platform towards renewable energy.

The benefits of delay?

I'm really just brainstorming here, and though I surely don't want to wait any longer, I think it's worth pondering the potential benefits of delaying debate/passage of the climate/energy bill until next spring. Though I don't expect it to happen, based on a stronger push from the administration for passage, there are certainly political risks to going after KGL this summer:

1. Republicans are still bitter about health care and may be inclined to be even more obstructionist that they have been the last 15 months (if that is even possible).
2. Midterms are right around the corner, and it might be dangerous to turn this into a rush job.
3. Climate/energy is one of several items on the agenda for the summer, a crowded list that includes filling a seat on the Supreme Court, financial regulatory reform, immigration (?) and a jobs package.

Allowing congress to tackle climate/energy at the beginning of the 2011 session has potential, though certainly not guaranteed, solutions to these problems. After the new congress is sworn in, there will almost definitely be fewer Democrats in both houses. Let's talk about the Senate, since the House already passed their climate/energy legislation last summer. The good money has Democrats losing 3-7 seats in the Senate, bringing their total to 52-56 including Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Dems. This will either a) make it virtually impossible to pass any legislation at all without a 60-vote supermajority or b) make it harder for Republicans to claim Democratic tyranny and force the other side of the aisle to come to the table. I've already said Republicans have good ideas to contribute on climate/energy - maybe this will give them an incentive to do so.

That might not matter as much, though, if Harry Reid comes through on his pledge to reform the Senate rules on the filibuster*. Such reform could feasibly occur at the beginning of the 112th Congress, when the Senate has the power to revisit its parliamentary rules without the 67 votes required while the Senate is in session. Again, this could yield at least two possible results. One, Republicans will cry foul and spew more "tyranny of the majority" nonsense. OR, two, they will adopt a more pragmatic attitude and come back to the table, in an ostensible attempt to contribute to legislation instead of pouting about the big bad Democrats.

I believe it's still possible that, with fewer Senate Dems and more time to calm down after health care, Republicans will make the multilateral decision to be legislators again. At the very least we can hope for some combination of Democrats + Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle and Lindsay Graham. Graham should be in the bag on climate/energy - he's writing the bill, after all - but to fill the deficit created by defectors like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, some bipartisan support will be required even with 59 seats. That might be easier to achieve in a new Congress, when tempers have settled, distracting elections are still a long ways away, and Republicans can't quite as easily frame the Democrats as political bullies. Additionally, President Obama may be able to make a more engaged contribution if his attention isn't as split as it certainly will be this summer. Time will tell.

_________________________

*That is, if Harry Reid is reelected.

Clean Energy Bills

This morning, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While I am cautiously ecstatic about its passage, my taxes don't pay my legislators to celebrate, but to legislate. So what's next? A couple climate and/or energy bills are on the docket. Let's take a look at them now.

• The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) - authored by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-CO), passed the House last summer (just barely). The bill includes all the right working parts, IMO, but is lacking in magnitude; too many emissions permits would be given away to polluters and not nearly enough money invested in clean energy development (on the order of 15 to 20 times lower than what's necessary).
• Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) - authored by Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the many Senate bills that's stuck in the mud. We haven't heard too much about CLEAR in a while, but it's worth pointing out its more effective bureaucratic transparency and disowns the use of carbon indulgences offsets.
• The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) - authored by John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), another Senate bill released last fall. Devotes a little too much revenue from the cap-and-trade scheme to deficit neutrality at the expense of clean energy investment.
• The "Kerry-Graham-Lieberman" Bill - authored by John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), this Senate bill has the benefit of being "tri-partisan" and adopts a more politically realistic approach to dirty energy provisions like coal and natural gas, along with support for nuclear. It compartmentalizes its carbon pricing scheme across industry borders. Once the CBO scores it (in the next month or two), we'll get a better idea of the energy efficiency and clean energy provisions in this more politically viable of bills.
• The American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA) - this "energy-only" bill, with no method to price carbon or reduce emissions, places more emphasis on energy efficiency programs and clean energy provisions...whose targets are less ambitious than business-as-usual projections.

None of these bills is an energy progressive's dream, and it has yet to be seen if any is even remotely politically feasible in the Senate. If Republican obstruction doesn't run on maximum, with support from Dems like Blanche Lincoln, then a bill with the following features might be both feasible and useful:

• A modest carbon pricing mechanism that can be improved in the future.
• Ambitious energy efficiency programs and renewable portfolio standards.
• Aggressive funding for clean energy research and development, on the order of at least $30 billion/yr.
• Provisions for nuclear, carbon capture/sequestration, and natural gas development--anyone who tells you we can move forward without these industries is optimistic to the point of delusion.

An "energy-only" bill may be more politically workable, but the carbon pricing system offers the most effective (and possibly transparent) revenue source. Carbon offsets are basically accounting tricks. Most importantly, from a policy standpoint, it doesn't do any good to punish consumers for using fossil fuels if the alternatives aren't economically feasible. The focus should be on making clean energy cheap. That's how America regains its economic and technological edge; that's how we clear the political hurdles in the Senate; and that's how we mitigate the climate problem.