Brown has already introduced the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act (or, the IMPACT Act) in the Senate, which would provide $30 billion to help small and medium-sized manufacturers transition to clean energy technology through a revolving loan fund. The fund would be distributed by states to support improved energy efficiency, retooling and expansion of manufacturing for new clean-energy technology. The climate and energy bill that the House passed in June included Brown’s provision.

And last week Brown appeared at a summit hosted by Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute to discuss the creation of a $15 billion National Institutes of Energy program, modeled after the National Institutes of Health. Brown said he is considering whether to offer legislation similar to the groups’ proposal. “It more than piqued my interest,” said Brown.

Brown has been leading efforts to get more money for manufacturing in a bill, arguing that it is essential to create and protect jobs. “The climate change bill is all about jobs. I look at it as how does this help us re-industrialize America, make America better,” he said. “It’s not just about manufacturing. It’s engineers, it’s construction, it’s teachers. … I see the climate change bill not like some oil executives might say, that it’s going to cost us jobs and close down refineries. In fact it’s going to increase jobs, and they’ll be good, middle-class wage jobs if we do this right.”

Brown is an important player in the climate debate, as a generally progressive Democrat from a manufacturing and coal-dependent state. In June 2008, he voted against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, but afterward affirmed his support for climate action — as long as it insulated states like Ohio. “I am committed 100 percent to passing a robust cap-and-trade policy,” said Brown at the time.

This year, he may well play a key role in shaping legislation to that effect. Talking to reporters last week, he said that he “probably wouldn’t” have voted to pass the House bill, but that he “wouldn’t say it’s a no-starter.” “It’s a place to start working,” said Brown.

Brown is also involved with a group of 10 senators looking to make sure trade protections are included in the bill. He said they are in talks with the White House to make sure that is included. Obama has balked at the trade measure in the House bill, calling it too “protectionist,” but Brown said they are hopeful that they will get some sort of border adjustment in the Senate bill. “Border equalization has to be in there. If it isn’t, I certainly can’t vote for that,” said Brown.

In Blue Dog Dem Heath Shuler’s North Carolina district, cap and trade is supported by 55% of voters, versus 29% opposed.

In Blue Dog Dem Baron Hill’s Indiana district, cap and trade is supported by 45%, versus 30% opposed.

In Dem Rep. Tom Perriello’s conservative Virginia district, cap and trade is supported by 42%, versus 25% opposed.

All three voted for the House climate bill, which makes the results not quite as surprising. More interesting would be the results in the districts of the 44 Dems who voted against it.

Murkowski’s proposed amendment (PDF) would allow the EPA to continue work on regulating emissions from automobiles, but would block them from using funds from “this or any other Act” to create rules governing stationary sources until after Sept. 30, 2010.

She hopes to attach it to the $32.1 billion spending bill that the Senate took up debate on yesterday, which covers the appropriations for the EPA as well as the Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.

This comes as the EPA continues work on regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, in response to the 2007 Supreme Court Decision directing them to do so.

A Murkowski spokesperson told ClimateWire that the senator wants to respect the court’s decision, but that a one-year timeout is needed to give Congress enough time to come up with a legislative solution.

Update: Murkowski’s office informed TWI that this is not the most recent version of the proposed amendment. Her spokesperson said the senator is seeking bipartisan support for the amendment and does not yet have a final version ready to be introduced.

Update: Murkowski’s office just sent the text of the latest version of the amendment, which states:

Effective during the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, none of the funds made available for the Environmental Protection Agency under this Act may be expended to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source as described in section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act or to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act except for purposes of section 10 202(a) of that Act.

Update: Here is the latest version of the amendment. Murkowski’s office said the senator is seeking bipartisan support for the amendment, and the language may still change. The spokesman said the senator has not made a final decision as to whether she will introduce the amendment, but will decide by mid-week.

The spokesperson also said that Murkowski does not want to thwart action on climate change entirely — just put if off for a bit longer. “Sen. Murkowski is not seeking to derail or delay congressional action on climate change,” said the spokesman. “She simply wants adequate time for the legislative process to work in order to avoid enacting a law that could have devastating unintended consequences on the economy.”

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) are reportedly considering (sub. req’d) offering amendments to force the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the blend level above the current 10 percent maximum as an amendment to the EPA appropriation bill. The corn-state senators would like to see blend limits raised to 15 percent, and E&E reports that it looks likely that the potential amendments would block funding for the EPA if they don’t move forward on raising the blend limit.

The EPA is currently considering a petition from more than 50 pro-ethanol groups, and is expected to come to a decision on it by Dec. 1. But that’s not soon enough for Nelson. “I have been waiting for EPA to deal with this,” he said. “It is something I must admit I am concerned about because they don’t seem to ever come to a conclusion.”

But the EPA faces opposition to increasing ethanol levels in gasoline from environmentalists, livestock producers, refiners, and other groups. Concerns have been raised about whether most engines can handle higher blends, and recent studies indicate that the use of ethanol may increase global warming. The general impression among opponents of the higher blend is that it doesn’t really benefit anyone other than the corn lobby.

The report totals government expenditures on different energy sources, both in direct spending and in foregone revenue resulting from tax breaks. It found that while the government spent $72.5 billion on fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008, it spent just $29 billion on renewables. And if the subsidies for corn ethanol – which is of questionable environmental benefit – aren’t included on the renewables side, the government spent just $12.2 billion on renewable energy over that period.

The government directly spent $16.3 billion on petroleum, natural gas, and coal products, and gave the industry another $53.9 billion in the form of tax breaks. Another $2.3 billion was used for carbon-capture-and-storage technology, nearly all of that in the form of direct government spending. A large portion of that spending — $15.3 billion – is actually designed to support overseas production of oil through the Foreign Tax Credit, which allows U.S. companies to avoid domestic taxes if they have paid royalties in the country of origin.

For renewables, the government allocated just $6.2 billion on tax breaks and $6 billion in direct expenditures. And while most fossil fuel subsidies are written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions, most subsidies for renewables are short-term provisions included in energy bills or other legislative measures, which has limited their usefulness to the industry.

President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (WDCpix)

Earlier this year, when it seemed plausible that Congress would address climate change in 2009, energy industry representatives were hyping the need for legislation to fend off regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency. When the EPA first declared carbon dioxide a threat to humankind in April – the necessary first step before they could begin regulating the greenhouse gas – industry groups were quick with the condemnations of EPA action.

“A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be difficult to imagine,” wrote Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Marlo Lewis. The American Petroleum Institute called the motion on regulation “an endangerment to the American economy and to every American family.”

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

But now Congress doesn’t seem likely to pass a new law regulating planet-warming emissions this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated to reporters this week that a climate bill could wait until 2010. And with the delay, attention is turning once again to what the EPA will do to regulated greenhouse gases in the absence of a new law.

But instead of pitching a fit, the same anti-environmental groups that once decried EPA regulation are now welcoming it. The EPA’s regulatory process is by nature slow and deliberate, with each regulation taking months to put in place. Once the regulatory process is completed, rules are often held up in years of litigation. And even if a regulation survives that, it can be reversed by a future administration. On the Clean Air Act specifically, the technologies necessary to meet the obligations of the law don’t yet exist for carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, though many did hope at one time for a climate bill this year, one that would give them more long-term certainty about carbon pricing, the House-passed Waxman-Markey climate bill is tougher than what many in the energy industry have lobbied to pass into law. Thus, the prospect of EPA regulations — once so feared by many in polluting industries — is now being welcomed as a stall tactic.

“I think most people in industry have come to the conclusion that they’d rather deal with the uncertainty of the Clean Air Act rather than the certainty of a very expensive program like you have under Waxman-Markey,” Jeffrey Holmstead, the former assistant administrator in the EPA’s Air and Radiation division during the Bush administration. Holmstead now represents a number of energy-sector clients for the prominent international law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

“I speak to a lot of industry folks. Most all of them would prefer climate legislation, something that gave them certainty,” said Holmstead. “But they would like what they consider to be reasonable legislation … But that’s not the Waxman-Markey bill.”

In April, the EPA followed through with the Supreme Court’s 2007 directive to determine whether carbon dioxide is a threat to human health and welfare. The agency’s finding that it is indeed a threat is expected to be finalized this fall. Once it is, the EPA will be required to begin the process of regulating emissions from a a variety of sources.

Throughout the initial stages of regulation, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has maintained that she, and the rest of the administration, would prefer not to regulate, as the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate carbon dioxide and a Congress-passed cap-and-trade bill would better address both environmental and economic concerns. But Jackson and other advocates of passing a bill this year have repeatedly used the threat of EPA regulation to push Congress toward action. “The race is clearly on and time is of the essence,” she told reporters back in April following her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of their climate bill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is authoring the Senate’s climate bill, offered similarly aggressive warnings. “If Congress does nothing … we will be watching EPA do our job, because they must under the Clean Air Act,” she said in a March press conference.

The industry flip on EPA regulation comes in reaction both to the House bill, which they see as too stringent, and to the widespread understanding that regulation from the EPA is by nature very slow. Regulation of specific emissio sources – like automobiles and power plants – would be issued separately. Each new regulation requires an advance notice of the rule, a comment period of up to 90 days, review of those comments, and then a final announcement of the new rule. And after each new rule is finalized, which generally takes months, it would likely be held up in years of litigation.

“I have heard people in my industry say, ‘You know, I know they use the EPA regulating carbon as a hammer over our heads. What’s so bad about that?’” said Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, the third largest power supplier in the country and a member of the influential environmental and business coalition United States Climate Action Partnership, at an event this week. “We might be in a much better place because it might take 5 to 6 years to litigate.”

“I’m saying this to you as a guy who doesn’t want the EPA to do it. I want Congress to do it. I want them to do it this year,” Rogers told reporters. “But if you just think through this you can see those who don’t want it to happen can take a lot of comfort in the old command and control.”

Some energy executives are also taking comfort in the fact that the Clean Air Act would only require emitters to curb their emissions using the “best available control technology” – that is, the best technology currently able to capture harmful emissions. The problem with using this to guide carbon dioxide regulations is that no such technology really exists right now. While there’s a much expectation in the industry and in Congress that carbon-capture-and-storage – often called “clean” coal technology – will be commercially available in the future, most experts agree that it’s likely 10 to 15 years away. Rogers himself cast doubt this week as to whether it will ever be commercially viable.

Environmental advocates prefer the legislative route, as it allows for more clear emissions reductions goals, can include additional policy measures with the cap, like a renewable electricity standard, and is often faster. “When [the EPA] get[s] a proposal out, we’re still years from actual implementation. That’s a long process,” said World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash told TWI.

But with Congress seeming less and less likely to act this year, the administration is charging ahead the rulemaking process. Earlier this week, Jackson and Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the first rules governing emissions from automobiles and light trucks. The administration has said they expect to have those rules finalized by next March.

Jackson again emphasized that her agency is will continue the process, even though it is unlikely to influence the Senate this year. “EPA will continue to do it’s job, which is to respond to the now two-plus-year old ruling about the Clean Air Act,” said Jackson on Tuesday. “I think it is fair to say that today’s announcement is path-breaking … It is the beginning of regulation. We should expect the EPA to continue to do its job.”

Environmental advocates offered support for the EPA is moving forward, though they still expressed optimism that Congress will act before those take hold. “We haven’t given up,” Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp told TWI of the Senate process. While he said they are pleased to see the EPA continue work on regulations, “For us to play a constructive role in inspiring other countries and giving other countries incentives to reduce their own emissions, we need Congressional legislation. There’s no question about that.”

Jackson also made it clear this week that the administration would prefer not to write the regulations. “I hope that doesn’t come to pass,” she said. “I believe that legislation is the preferable route.”

From the FRC blast:

Jones, President Obama’s “green jobs” czar, was caught using profanity in reference to Republicans; Jennings has directed his profanity at God Himself! Jones merely signed his name to a conspiracy myth about the September 11 attacks; but Jennings has spent decades actively and successfully promoting myths about homosexuality to schoolchildren as founder of the radical Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN). Van Jones was done in by two key charges and one taped quote; FRC documented at least seven outrageous facts about Jennings and five inflammatory quotes in documents we released in June (see www.stopjennings.org).

Unfortunately, Jennings has now taken his office at the Education Department-where he will be charged with implementing laws like the “Safe Schools Improvement Act,” introduced as H.R. 2262. This bill to combat “bullying” and “harassment” is like a “hate crimes” law for schools-but without being limited to actual violence. Cutting down on bullying and harassment of anyone is a worthy goal, but naming “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected categories makes this bill more about advancing the homosexual agenda than keeping schools safe.

The measure, often called a “price collar,” is designed to stabilize the price of the credits that polluting entities would need to acquire under a cap-and-trade system. The provision is popular with many swing-vote senators and industries, as it helps lessen worries about price swings and curb market speculation. And setting a floor price is preferable to environmental advocates, who don’t want to see prices drop so low that there is no incentive for businesses to reduce their carbon (see our earlier post on this subject).

Reports The Energy Daily (sub. req’d):

The draft legislation, which Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to introduce at the end of the month, would establish an initial allowance price ceiling of $28 per metric ton of carbon dioxide and a price floor of $11, with the prices adjusted upwards annually thereafter, according to a source familiar with the measure.

Under the provision, if heavy demand pushed allowance market prices above the $28 ceiling, the government would borrow allowances from future years and sell them to regulated entities at the ceiling price, a move that in theory would reduce demand for allowances and lower prices.

The inclusion of a price collar is reflective of Boxer’s drive to keep the costs of a climate bill low.

“The current administration claims to be the most transparent in American history, yet it’s been hiding a report showing its cap-and-trade energy plan would cost up to $200 billion every year,” he told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

Lamar’s statements also disregard the Department of Treasury’s debunking of the “secret” memo. “The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong,” said Alan B. Krueger, Treasury assistant secretary for economic policy. “Treasury’s analysis is consistent with public analyses … and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals.”