Jury out on new incentives in warming bill
WASHINGTON — U.S. senators pushing climate change legislation are hoping for a debate soon after Memorial Day on a new version designed to attract support from colleagues in places like Missouri and Illinois.
Advocates of the environmental controls hope the revised bill, with hefty bonuses for coal research and nuclear power, might break up a logjam that has held up the anti-global warming drive in Congress for nearly a year.
But the latest version has done little to erode regional barriers pitting the coal-dependent Midwest against the East and West. And while it has won a few new endorsements from utilities and nuclear operators, the legislation’s promotion of offshore drilling by distributing revenue to states appears to have been ill-timed given the ongoing inability to control the oil spill in the Gulf.
For now, the fate of the legislation setting limits on planet-warming emissions is unclear.
Given concerns about effects on the Midwest, Sen. Claire McCaskill is among those who sound unenthusiastic about the new proposal introduced by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. The House already has approved a version of climate change legislation.
McCaskill, D-Mo., is one of the Democrats that the conservationists probably need in order to prevail in the Senate. But she says she remains worried not just about coal-dependent Missouri bearing too big a burden but also about efforts to win votes via generous support for coal research and nuclear power.
“This legislation should not be an episode of ‘Let’s Make a Deal’ in terms of political quid pro quo — ‘You scratch my back, I’ll give you a vote.’ But there are some things in the bill that kind of have that flavor to them,” she said.
Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., has been a vocal critic of cap-and-trade plans, including the newest with its sweeteners for industry. “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck,” he said recently.
Bond also is a key player in a GOP-led amendment that surface this week aimed at preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that “it’s time to seriously debate this. I’m very honest about the fact that it is going to take some time, and we don’t have a lot of it left this year.”
Asked whether he supports the new legislation, Durbin said: “I really don’t know it well enough. I support the concept of moving toward reducing carbon emissions, but we need to make sure we don’t penalize families and small businesses in the process.”
A spokesman for Sen. Roland Burris, a Democrat, said Burris is interested in the legislation’s expanded support for new nuclear power and in funding for central Illinois’ two multibillion-dollar clean-coal projects — FutureGen in Mattoon and the Taylorville Energy Center — aimed at removing carbon pollution.
Climate legislation has become a flashpoint in Missouri’s high-profile Senate race. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, the likely Democratic nominee, has been silent on the issue of late. Her campaign declined to make her available for an interview in recent days, referring instead to a 3-month-old assertion that she won’t vote for something “that’s going to stick it to consumers.”
U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, a leading candidate for the GOP Senate nomination, is clear about his sentiments. He said in an interview that he remains wary of a trading system for pollution credits — the guts of the bill — because, in his view, such a system already in place in Europe hasn’t worked well.
Blunt said his biggest concern is the prospect of Missourians losing jobs to nations such as China, India and Brazil because of stringent emission levels in the United States
Responding to a question, Blunt added: “I accept that there is climate change. I’m not sure I accept that we’re into a perpetual warming period. But even if we are, one country can’t solve the problem.”
The new legislation was filed before the National Academy of Sciences issued a report May 18 affirming a previous study urging action to stem runaway global warming. The academy asserted that oceans could rise by as much as 5 feet by century’s end, well more than a previous estimate of 1.5 feet.
Citing ongoing threats from pollution, the academy called for remedies that have been elusive so far in the Senate: a tax on carbon emissions and a cap-and-trade program that would give industries the flexibility to buy and sell rights to pollute under a system of decreasing overall limits.
The new Senate bill aims to win votes by doubling to $2 billion annually the money for coal research and tripling — to $54 billion — the amount of government loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. It also would exempt manufacturers until 2016 and reduce the potential effects on consumers by giving them a greater share of the proceeds from selling carbon permits — 75 percent rather than 45 percent in the House-passed bill.
The American Lung Association responded with alarm at another provision that would set up a task force to review Clean Air Act air pollution rules, a means by which industries could alter regulations that they find burdensome.
Among those endorsing the legislation are the Edison Electric Institute, which represents 70 percent of the nation’s electric power industry, and Illinois-based Exelon Corp., the nation’s leading nuclear operator.
St. Louis-based Ameren Corp., which has both coal-fired and nuclear generation, has not signed on. Company officials, who declined to be interviewed, issued a statement saying that the legislation is an improvement over earlier versions but that Ameren is hoping for further changes, including a lower cost for the allowances for pollution and more liberal use of ways to achieve credits by doing such things as planting trees that absorb carbon dioxide.
Jeff Holmstead, a Washington lobbyist whose clients include Ameren, said utilities also worry that the legislation could make it easier for opponents to block new coal plants using laws like the Endangered Species Act.
Holmstead, a top Environmental Protection Agency official under President George W. Bush, asked: “Why do you want to enact a law when there’s no way to achieve the underlying requirement of reducing (carbon pollution) 17 percent by 2020 and still provide the nation with reliable electricity?”
Liz Forrestal, executive director of Missouri Votes Conservation, said that she and other advocates are trying to persuade McCaskill to support the legislation when — and if — it comes up for a vote. They’re also are waiting to hear from Carnahan on the issue, she said.
“Environmental issues have taken a back seat to a number of critical issues, and obviously politicians are responsive to that. I don’t think the environmental community has done a good job with our message,” she said.
-BILL LAMBRECHT
