Lieberman-Warner... the aftermath Posted by Joe Lucas on 06/09/2008 06:57:30 PM

As soon as the Senate voted last week to shelve the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, there were lots of people out spinning what that vote meant.

Actually, the vote said very little about where the senators were with respect to this bill – it was more of a statement that they didn’t like how this bill was managed by those on both sides of the aisle.

In fact, there are press accounts of a letter sent to Senate leaders by 10 Democrats who voted in favor of closure on the bill but publicly stated that they would have voted against that bill (in its current form) on final passage. Taking the intentions of those senators into account, it is hard to make the case that there is any momentum to pass a bill like Lieberman-Warner. 

That is not to say, “I told you so.”  Instead, we’ve been talking about what we think it will take to pass a federal bill that will enact mandatory standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Here are our thoughts:

First, energy costs play a central role in developing comprehensive climate change legislation. Gasoline costs more than $4 per gallon and the budgets of working families and Americans living on low and fixed incomes are taking a big hit from higher energy prices. Climate legislation must not force consumers to pay unnecessarily higher energy costs. 

Second, any policy addressing climate change is inextricably linked to broader U.S. energy security, economic development and environmental goals. We have the opportunity to craft a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction bill that will protect America’s energy security and our domestic economy. In the end, many senators recognized that the Lieberman-Warner bill was not the right legislative vehicle to accomplish these interrelated goals.   

Third, substantial bipartisan support is crucial to enacting comprehensive federal climate legislation. This kind of bipartisan support was vital to passing the Clean Air Act in 1970 and the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990—and will be equally important to the ultimate passage of climate legislation. 

The Lieberman-Warner debate did serve the important function of focusing the attention of Congress and all Americans on the important work ahead of us. We remain committed to supporting a bill that will achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions, preserve fuel diversity as a means of protecting energy security, and ensure access to affordable electricity for American consumers. In the months ahead, ACCCE will work with members of Congress and other policymakers to develop reasonable, effective legislative proposals on this important and complex issue.

Go Slow To Go Fast Posted by Joe Lucas on 06/03/2008 02:29:26 PM

A few years ago, I attended a training seminar hosted by the American Management Association in which we discussed the decisions that many businesses or organizations make to “go fast to ultimately go slow” as opposed to what (in some cases) is a smarter strategy of “going slow to ultimately go fast.”

The discussion has stuck with me, and I think some of the same principles are in play as the U.S. Senate begins debate this week on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

We’re like a lot of organizations in that we support adoption of a mandatory federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I’ll bet that is a position that is shared by many of you.

However, unlike some organizations (and I suspect many of you), we’re not willing to accept the first bill that comes down the pike.

The Lieberman-Warner bill is not the best bill to accomplish our common goals. While all of the pending greenhouse gas emissions bills in the Congress seek emissions reductions, some bills (and the Lieberman-Warner bill is a prime example) would increase energy costs for American families and businesses and would force Americans to rely more upon imported energy resources to meet growing energy demand.

Recent public opinion polls show that Americans support the notion of reducing greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about how measures like the Lieberman-Warner bill would affect consumer energy costs. With all of us dealing with high gasoline prices, who could blame anybody for having reservations?

The good news is that we can reduce emissions and also work to keep energy costs affordable. The key is technology.

Advanced clean coal technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the nation’s coal-based power plants is a near-term reality. This is a fact that is not lost on many Americans, as polling shows that a significant majority of Americans believe technology will make it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and still rely on domestic and affordable energy resources like coal.

It is clear that the Lieberman Warner-bill is not going to be enacted into law this session of Congress. The real negotiation on this issue will take place starting in 2009 when a new congress and new president begin work on a bill that I predict will be passed and signed into law.

That said, it is important that senators not take positions on this bill that will ultimately make it harder to pass a bill in the next Congress.  In other words, go slow on Lieberman-Warner and realize that the real game will begin in 2009.

Studies Agree... Lieberman-Warner Would Cause Energy Costs To Rise Posted by Joe Lucas on 05/20/2008 02:46:28 PM

While there is much uncertainty swirling around the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, one thing is for certain: if it passes, consumer energy prices will rise.

That is the consensus that came out of this morning’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s hearing on Capitol Hill, when representatives from several government agencies testified regarding Lieberman-Warner’s economic impact.

Senators heard about studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Information Administration and many others. Each study has different numbers and makes different assumptions about the economy and our future energy usage. But they agree on one point: costs will go up.

The prospect of higher energy costs should worry the average American consumer who is already being bitten by high fuel costs. Every day, it seems, we’re being reminded of the linkage between higher energy costs and our economy.

But where we take issue with the Lieberman-Warner bill is that we believe that there are ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without unnecessarily increasing energy costs on American consumers. We’re committed to supporting a mandatory federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... it’s just that we can’t support a bill that doesn’t also do everything possible to keep energy costs affordable for American families and businesses.

Given that this bill is essentially not going anywhere during this term of Congress (even it if were to pass the Senate, there is little to no appetite to consider a bill in the House this year), senators would be better served to “keep their powder dry” and instead look for alternative strategies that would achieve emissions reductions, protect energy security and keep energy costs affordable for consumers.