legislation

Sanders’ fifth amendment

This is a big one. He wants the bill to move to a full auction of allowances by 2026 as opposed to 2036 as currently stipulated. A lot of enviros would like a 100 percent auction from day one, so this isn't as radical as it sounds, but it's still immensely important.

But Joe Lieberman says no. He says that the bill as is will already involve some hardship to some industries, so they basically need tons of subsidies. Right.

Lieberman paid lip service to the possibility that the auction provisions might be strengthened later on, but said that 2036 is the "balance point" for political compromise right now and killed the amendment nonetheless.

Sanders’ fourth amendment

This one would require the EPA to act if the National Academy of Sciences learns that we have not taken sufficient action to avoid the worst effects of global warming. It's a so-called "look back" amendment.

Lieberman ... opposes it! His own amendment package calls for periodic NAS reports, directs the EPA to review those reports and recommend changes to America's Climate Security Act to the Congress. That's an important difference. There's pros and cons to each. Under a good EPA administrator, the Sanders' amendment would be extremely important. Under an EPA administrator like the current one, it would mean four years without look backs. Lieberman's amendment defers to Congress, which as we all know doesn't always get things done super fast.

Lautenberg has proposed changing this amendment in a way that would allow Congress to override EPA recommendations, and Sanders has agreed to withdraw the amendment until it can be considered in the full committee.

Opposing Sanders

Joe Lieberman better have buttered up Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) fairly thoroughly, because he's certainly not courting Bernie Sanders.

That said, Lieberman has supported Sanders' third amendment, a modest change to the bill requiring the auto industry to meet the CAFE standards -- 35 mpg -- passed by the Senate this year.

This amendment, gratefully, has passed.

Sanders’ second amendment

He wants to carve out funds, currently expected to benefit the auto industry, and dedicate them to improving efficiency. Sanders notes that the language in the bill is extremely weak -- it indicates a flood of subsidies to the auto industry without spelling out specifically what's expected from the auto industry in return.

How did chairman Lieberman react? He opposed it, of course! (That basically kills it.)

Update: It failed.

Amendments

Bernie Sanders' amendment would carve out a chunk of money from the subsidy package for low-and-zero-carbon technologies and earmark it specifically for wind, solar, and other renewable-energy companies. Lieberman opposes it on the grounds that (a) it's too large a handout to wind and solar, and (b) he wants to wait to spell out the winners of the subsidies in order to keep a coalition of support (which includes an antinuclear faction) in the Senate together. That will pretty much kill the amendment.

Update: Yup, it's dead.

Why can’t legislators connect nuclear power and water shortages?

Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman! Listen to this, from E&E (sub rqd): Of the two Republicans on the subcommittee, Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.), repeated his call to use the [Lieberman-Warner] legislation for the promotion of nuclear power. … Isakson said he would likely miss the subcommittee markup to attend a White House meeting on the Southeastern […]

More objections to Lieberman-Warner from Bernie Sanders

Earlier, Brian noted one statement from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. There’s another over on The Hill blog that gets into the technical details of Sanders’ objections. It’s worth reading. To begin with, it shows that Sanders is one of the only legislators in D.C. that really gets it: On most […]

What to expect going into Thursday

Thursday's the first "big day" for the Lieberman-Warner climate bill -- the first time the bill can be officially changed, for better or worse, before the vote determining whether the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will consider it.

As it stands, the bill has the support of its authors, subcommittee chair Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and ranking member John Warner (R-Va.), plus, as announced last week, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mon.).

That leaves four unknowns on the subcommittee that Lieberman chairs: Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). If they all vote no, the bill dies a quiet, unexpected death in subcommittee.

I say unexpected because the sense on the Hill right now is that the bill will move forward. One Democratic staffer told me that four no's is not "a likely scenario."

"It's important for people to know that nobody's looking for perfection" at this stage, the staffer said. What they're looking for is evidence that some of their more fundamental concerns are addressed and that the bill doesn't just move to the full committee exactly as introduced earlier this month.

That said, Lautenberg and Sanders are ambitious environmentalists, and their fundamental concerns are many. They'll likely be expecting at least some strengthening of the weak emissions-credit auction, and some sharing of the extremely generous subsidies now going overwhelmingly to coal and auto industry. (Sanders wants more for clean energy.) [See this memo (PDF) from Friends of the Earth for the sheer magnitude of the proposed handouts.]

As more information comes along, I'll pass it your way, and will provide continuing coverage on Thursday.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is no fan

Some harsh words just in from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.):