Ed Markey

Waxman-Markey bill gets a B+

House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are releasing their long-awaited draft energy and climate bill today. Based on reports from a Committe debrief and an E&E Daily story this morning ($ub. req’d, excerpted below) and a Reuters story (here), I’ll give some first impressions. […]

House Dems say they’re coming together around climate and energy legislation

A group of key House Democratic leaders sent a letter to President Obama on Friday signaling that they intend to work together on climate and energy legislation despite the different views and constituencies they represent. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and John Dingell (D-Mich.), the former chair whom Waxman unseated […]

NRDC climate guy to advise the global warming select committee

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Friday announced that he’s added Natural Resources Defense Council’s Michael Goo to the roster at the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. Goo, NRDC’s climate legislative director, is serving as special counsel to the committee focusing on climate legislation. Prior to joining NRDC, Goo worked for two […]

Markey on cap v. tax and ways to properly regulate carbon markets

In Houston last week for CERAWeek, Rep. Ed Markey -- chair of the Energy/Environment Subcommittee and the Global Warming & Energy Independence Select Committee -- gave an interview to the Houston Chronicle.

He had this to say on the tax vs. trade question:

Q: A cap-and-trade system is widely assumed to be the form the climate change bill will take, but economists and many others say a carbon tax would be a simpler, more efficient method to reach the same goals. Is the door completely closed on a carbon tax?

A: I think it's much more likely that a cap-and-trade system will be used. They've already reached a consensus in Europe, that 400-million-person continent, that that's the way to go, and it's the overwhelming way we're going with. I understand economists, and how they want to have a debate over what's more efficient, but in the end we can construct it as a cap-and-invest bill that is imposed in a fair, predictable way and will create incentives for innovation. What I use as an analogy is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Up until then not one single home had broadband access. My goal in that act was to create the incentives for the deployment of broadband that could then lead—because of that huge additional capacity that was constructed—to the creation of thousands of other companies that could use that broadband capacity. I didn't know the names of the companies would be Google, eBay, Amazon, YouTube and thousands of others that created 3 to 5 million new jobs in America. But 10 years later people look back at the black rotary phone era as ancient history, but it's not that long ago. And I think we can do that same thing here. We have the opportunity to create 3 to 5 million new jobs in the energy sector if we unleash a technological revolution, because we have created through a cap-and-trade system a set of incentives that provides that opportunity. And I'm very confident that the same thing will happen. That's been my experience as chairman over telecommunications, chairman over regulation of the financial marketplace: the incentives have to be put in place in a predictable way that creates the incentives for the change that the country needs.

As to the fear of financial speculators, he had this to say:

Green(ish) news from around the capitol

• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) is expected to be named the new chair of the energy subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, according to a press release from her office. • First Lady Michelle Obama stopped by the Department of Interior on Monday to visit with Secretary Ken Salazar and employees, […]

Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing

The following is a guest post from Tom Casten, chairman of Recycled Energy Development LLC.

-----

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, along with Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.), has introduced legislation calling for 25 percent of U.S. electricity to come from clean energy by 2025. What will such legislation do to electricity costs?

Most pundits assume the current system is optimal, and thus claim that any mandate to change this "best of all possible worlds" will raise the price of delivered electricity. It is hilarious to think the protected and regulated electric system is optimal, but depressing to realize no one is laughing. Consider two questions:

1. Do market forces drive electricity suppliers to lowest-delivered-cost solutions?
2. What is the delivered cost of clean energy from various generation options?

What market forces? All electricity distribution systems and many generation plants enjoy monopoly protection. Subsidies abound. Profits are guaranteed. Old plants can legally emit up to 100 times the pollution of a new plant. A century of rules reward and protect yesterday's approaches and the resulting vested interests.

Congressman Markey has never seen current generation as optimal, and now that he chairs the relevant subcommittee, he proposes to mandate cleaner and, in our view, cheaper electricity generation. Yes, we said cheaper. Anyone interested in some facts?

NYT fails to acknowledge the job-creation opportunities from climate legislation

On the front page of Wednesday's NYT, we learned that Midwestern Democrats hate the climate. Or something. The ostensible point of the article was to highlight the geographical split between the climate change policymakers from the Obama administration and the House -- predominantly from the East and West coasts -- and the moderate Midwestern and Plains-state Democrats in the Senate who, according to the NYT, actually care about jobs.

For the record, the article, while admitting that President Barack Obama is, you know, Midwestern, ignored the fact that Ray LaHood and Tom Vilsack, Secretaries of Transportation and Agriculture, respectively, 1) are also from the Midwest, and 2) will have a significant role in devising an economy-wide solution to climate change.

And this is not to underplay the legitimate concerns that representatives from coal-dependent manufacturing states have. But this mostly just points to the greater weakness of the article -- the way it plays into the idea that addressing climate change will be some kind of job-killing catastrophe. This from the same newspaper that could write a feature on the tremendous job creation underway in Iowa related to wind-turbine manufacturing, a serious growth industry given that the nearby Plains states are considered the "so-called Saudi Arabia of wind." Keep in mind that enormous wind turbines will likely never be imported from abroad since one of these monstrous steel blades can barely fit on an oversize tractor-trailer much less be flown around the world on a 747. Indeed, the industry's potential for the Midwest led President Obama to visit a turbine factory in Ohio just the other week.

With Markey in place, the House is geared for ambition on climate and energy

As Kate reported earlier today, new House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is reorganizing the committee, unifying oversight of climate, energy, air quality, and water issues under a single subcommittee: the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

The Boston Globe just broke the news that Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will chair the new subcommittee.

This is a big deal, even if you don't particularly care about inside Congressional baseball.

Right now Markey chairs the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, and reportedly enjoys working on telecom policy. Due to his seniority, he had his choice of subcommittees this session -- which meant he could, if he wanted, take the reins of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee from coal lover and Dingell ally Rick Boucher (D-Va.). That alone would have been, as Joe noted the other day, "almost as big a deal as Waxman defeating Dingell for committee chair."

But now Waxman has consolidated environment and energy jurisdiction in one subcommittee. Gone is the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, chaired by Gene Green [D-Texas], another Dingell ally.

Apparently that sweetened the pot enough to make it irresistible to Markey.

Markey will remain chair of the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. Joe said the other day that he "can't see the point in keeping the Select committee if Markey switches positions," but I think that misses something important.

Markey to replace Boucher as chair of Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee?

Congressional Quarterly Online reported last week:

The two senior House Democrats with jurisdiction over energy and telecommunications policies could swap gavels in the 111th Congress, with potentially dramatic implications for the shape of climate change legislation expected next year.

Since 2007, Rick Boucher of Virginia, the Energy and Commerce Committee's fourth-ranking Democrat, has led the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, which has taken the lead role in crafting legislation to address global warming.

But Boucher said in an interview Tuesday that he expects Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, No. 3 among committee Democrats in seniority, to bid for the subcommittee chairmanship. Boucher said he would "respect that decision" and stake his own claim for chairmanship of Markey's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

"I'm awaiting his decision," Boucher said. Markey has not yet made up his mind, a spokesman said.

This would be almost as big a deal as Waxman defeating Dingell for committee chair. Just as Dingell-Boucher co-authored a House climate bill last session, one would expect that if this change occurs, Waxman and Markey would co-author a House Bill in this session. And it certainly wouldn't be as lame (see "Q: Does Dingell-Boucher have meaningful auctioning of CO2 permits before 2026?").

The story continues: