Tri-State, which services 1.5 million customers in four states and covers some 200,000 square miles, generates the electricity, while its 44 cooperatives purchase the electricity in bulk for more competitive rates. Twelve of the cooperatives are based in New Mexico.

Kit Carson Electric Co-op, the lone dissenting vote, plans to protest the price increase with the Public Regulation Commission. However, in order for PRC to review a rate hike, two other co-ops must file a protest. Tri-State, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, is raising rates for the first time in three years; a spokesperson for Kit Carson framed the frequency differently, saying on Monday this will be the seventh rate hike in eleven years.

The Taos-based co-op operates in Taos, Colfax and Rio Arriba counties. The majority of the customers serviced by the private non-profit group live in PRC District 3, which is technically without a representative following Commissioner Jerome D. Block stepping down from office after months of inquiry into his illegal use of public funds. He pleaded guilty to two counts in late September.

Gov. Susana Martinez will announce a replacement member soon. The rate hikes are scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2012.

The EPA guidance comes as the agency is preparing to require in January, for the first time, that new large facilities or facilities that need significant modifications implement Best Available Control Technologies, or BACT, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The new guidance does not require that states or local permitting authorities use a specific type of method for reducing emissions, but the EPA said in a statement today that it “anticipates that, in most cases, this process will show that the most cost effective way for industry to reduce GHG emissions will be through energy efficiency.”

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office Air and Radiation, said in the statement:

To identify GHG reduction options, EPA and the states are now ready to apply the same time-tested process they have used for other pollutants. This shows that the Clean Air Act can be used to reduce these gases in a cost effective way.

Industry has been critical of the upcoming BACT requirements, arguing that they will impose prohibitive costs on building new facilities. On a conference call with reporters today, McCarthy said the requirements “will not significantly add to the burden or the timeline or the cost.”

Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) unveiled a proposal Tuesday to increase use of renewable energy. (Flickr, Auntie K)

A bipartisan coalition of senators today unveiled a proposal that would require a certain percentage of the country’s electricity to come from renewable sources like wind and solar. The announcement revived hopes that the measure could move this year, but it remains unclear if there is enough time or political will in the Senate to pass the legislation this session.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not committed to setting aside floor time for the proposal this year. And the bill’s author, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), told reporters today that he would wait to cement the necessary votes before approaching Reid to schedule a vote.

Renewable energy advocates and environmentalists praised the announcement, while noting that the renewable energy standard, or RES, is not stringent enough. The last six months have been difficult for environmentalists, who faced a string of legislative defeats — first on economy-wide cap-and-trade, then on a narrow cap-and-trade bill. And now there are legitimate questions about whether the Senate will be able to pass a slimmed-down energy bill or an oil spill response bill, even after the mid-term elections.

So the RES announcement was, for many environmentalists, a welcome respite from months of disappointment. Sean Garren, clean energy advocate at Environment America, said, “Senator Bingaman’s renewable electricity standard would commit America to beginning the move towards a clean energy economy.  While the standard is weaker than America can and should achieve, the Senate must pass the bill quickly to deliver to the entire country the benefits that states with standards are already enjoying.”

The bill, which is sponsored by Bingaman and Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), has early support from a number of Democrats, including Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.). Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and John Ensign (Nev.), also lent their support to the proposal.

The proposal, which is nearly identical to a provision in an energy bill passed by Bingaman’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year, requires that 15 percent of the country’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2021. Entities can meet the standard by producing or purchasing renewable energy like wind, solar, biomass and some hydropower. They can also meet the standard through energy efficiency savings. The RES will not affect state programs, many of which are more stringent than the federal proposal, according to a summary of the bill.

But a 2009 analysis of a similar RES proposal by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a research arm of the Department of Energy, found that it likely won’t increase renewable energy development beyond a business-as-usual scenario. The analysis is based on Bingaman’s original 20 percent by 2021 RES proposal, which was cut down to 15 percent to win support from Republicans on the committee.

Bingaman said he believes he has the 60 votes necessary to pass the new RES bill. “I think that the votes are present in the Senate to pass a renewable electricity standard,” he said in a statement. “I think that they are present in the House. I think that we need to get on with figuring out what we can pass and move forward.”

Franz Matzner, climate center legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the RES proposal “doesn’t deliver the goods the way we’d like to see it.” The bill is a “band aid” measure, he says, arguing that the Senate needs to move on comprehensive climate change legislation. But Matzner says, “If this is the best place we can get bipartisan agreement, it’s better than getting nothing done.”

It’s too early to say whether the bill will be able to pass the Senate this year. There are very few legislative days left before the Senate breaks for the mid-term elections, and it’s unclear how long a lame-duck session might be. “They could have an eight-hour lame-duck session or they could have a productive two weeks or they could sit and do nothing,” Matzner says.

Reid’s spokeswoman, Regan Lachapelle, notes there is very little time left in the year to pass the RES bill. “Senator Reid strongly supports a national renewable electricity standard,” LaChapelle says. “But, there is very limited time before the October recess and probably even during the lame duck, so the proponents of a stand-alone RES will need to demonstrate they have 60 votes for swift floor action before floor consideration could be scheduled.”

One environmentalist — who has been closely following the issue but is not authorized to speak on the record — said passage of the RES could be dependent on whether it moves as a stand-alone measure or is packaged together with other provisions. At the same time, the environmentalist says, much will depend on the outcome of the mid-term elections. “The bigger the Republican success on election day, the less likely anything will be accomplished during the lame duck session,” the environmentalist says.

Many environmentalists have called for a 25 percent RES by 2025, but before the August recess a coalition of renewable energy advocates endorsed the Bingaman 15 percent RES, noting that it was the only proposal that could win bipartisan support. “In this political climate, we have to do what we have to do,” American Wind Energy Association President Denise Bode told reporters in July.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the Capitol on Tuesday (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Environmental groups are working feverishly behind the scenes to ensure that the climate and energy bill being cobbled together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) includes a carbon cap on the power sector, but sources closely following the debate on and off Capitol Hill say there is simply not enough support for such a proposal to pass the Senate this year.

[Environment1] A bill without any cap on carbon emissions would be a major disappointment for liberal Democrats and environmental advocates, who have long called for a price on carbon across all sectors of the economy. A so-called utility-only cap, which would limit pollution from just the electricity sector, was itself considered a significant compromise, but even that now appears to be a longshot.

Reid gave environmentalists some hope during a discussion with reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday, when he said he had a “rough draft” of climate and energy legislation that includes four titles. The first will center on an oil spill response and will likely raise oil companies’ financial liability in the event of another spill. The second will address “clean energy job creation and consumer savings,” and the third will focus on “reducing oil consumption and increasing energy independence,” according to Reid spokesperson Regan LaChapelle.

It’s the fourth title that’s receiving the most attention. Reid told reporters Tuesday that the title will focus on reducing pollution in the utility sector, but he declined to elaborate. While many environmentalists are touting Reid’s comments as an indication of his willingness to push a utility-only bill, LaChapelle, asked if the fourth title will include such a provision, said, “Decisions are still being made.”

But a list of provisions expected to be included in the final energy and climate bill, provided to TWI by a senior Senate source closely involved in the debate, does not include any cap on carbon emissions. And a Senate Democratic aide also closely tied to discussions on the bill echoes that point, saying the votes don’t exist to pass even a scaled-down utility-only bill.

Still, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the architects of a climate and energy bill with a broad cap on carbon emissions, are preparing to distribute a so-called “utility-first” bill that would impose a cap in the near term only on utilities, possibly adding in other sectors later. Kerry and Lieberman met with a wide range of environmentalists — including representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club — on Tuesday to discuss the proposal.

Environmental groups have spent the last several weeks working directly with various electric industry executives in an attempt to negotiate a middle ground on a utility-only bill, according to industry and environmental sources. One source representing a major environmental group, who requested anonymity to discuss the ongoing negotiations, says he is confident that an agreement with utilities can be worked out because many believe “that congressional action that creates a cap-and-trade law would be better for them” than regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency, which could go into effect if Congress does not act.

The environmentalist says there are a “lot of conversations going on around town” with utility executives in an attempt to hammer out a utility-only package. Environmental advocates are working to persuade a “critical mass” of members of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a key utility trade group, to support a utility-only proposal. It remains unclear if they’ve been able to find such support. Calls to an EEI spokesperson were not returned as of press time.

But a cap on utility emissions faces strong resistance from trade groups representing energy-intensive manufacturers. According to the environmentalist source, environmental groups do not expect manufacturers to “applaud” a utility-only bill, but they are trying to come to a compromise to avoid “all-out war” on such a proposal.

One lobbyist who represents the manufacturing industry threw cold water on the idea of a utility-only bill.

“With energy-intensive industries, you don’t have to think about utility-only for very long before you see that it has consequences,” the lobbyist said, adding that most utility-only proposals would result in a significant increase in electricity and production costs that could ultimately drive businesses, and jobs, overseas.

As the debate over energy legislation progresses, environmentalists acknowledge that time is not on their side. Reid said he hopes to introduce a final climate and energy bill the week of July 27, giving lawmakers little time to lobby for the inclusion of their proposals in the final package.

But Dan Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said he is confident that utility-only language will make its way into the package Reid brings to the floor, suggesting that the provisions could be culled from the work being done by Kerry and Lieberman, a months-old utility-only bill written by Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) staff or compromises hashed out with utilities.

Weiss could not say for certain whether a bill without any carbon cap would retain the support of liberal Democrats. But he noted that if the Senate passes a bill without a cap, environmentalists could look to a conference session with the House, which approved an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill last year, to strengthen the bill.

Franz Matzner, climate legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed Weiss’s comments. “In Washington, there’s this perpetual drumbeat that any piece of legislation is dead until all of a sudden it’s not,” he said. “The public doesn’t want band-aid measures. A lot of work is being done to include a cap.”

If a climate and energy bill moves forward without a cap on carbon emissions, environmentalists are left to focus on a renewable energy standard, which mandates that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, as well as provisions to wean the country off of its dependence on oil. But the RES included in the energy bill passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last June has just a 15 percent renewable energy requirement, a paltry figure for environmental advocates, many of whom have called for a 25 percent RES. Bingaman has said he will work to strengthen an RES on the floor, but sources, including some environmentalists, raise doubts about that possibility, given the tense political atmosphere in the Senate.

Across the board, stakeholders in the energy and climate debate say they are waiting for the White House to weigh in on the issue. While President Obama has called for a comprehensive climate and energy bill, he has said very little in recent months about a cap on carbon, nor has he laid out specific provisions he would like to see in a bill. Democratic leaders went to the White House today to discuss policy priorities for the rest of the session with the president. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday that the potential for passing an energy and climate bill this year came up at the meeting, but no decisions were made.

Asked whether a utility-only bill can pass this year, Dorgan, who has raised opposition to trying to pass a cap-and-trade bill in the past, was skeptical.

“Almost all of us understand we have to deal with energy issues to the extent that we can, but you know, we have difficulty even extending unemployment compensation, and that ought to be something that you would easily and quickly do during an economic downturn,” he said. “The question is, what’s achievable on energy? What can we get done?”

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), long sought after as a potential Republican supporter of climate legislation, also downplayed the likelihood of passage of a utility-only bill. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday, Snowe said, “That’s still an open question as to whether or not you can even accomplish [a utility-only bill] and achieve the kind of consensus necessary.” A better near-term option, Snowe said, is to pass a bill that focuses on “an energy plan with efficiency and conservation and renewables and perhaps from that you can reach the point of addressing utility-only as a possibility.”

For her part, Snowe said she has been “raising the idea” of a utility-only bill for months and acknowledged “talking” with Kerry and Lieberman about crafting a utility-first bill. Her staff also worked with Bingaman’s staff on his utility-only bill, which has not yet been introduced, nor is it likely to be.

Later on Tuesday, Reid met with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House climate and energy policy coordinator Carol Browner to discuss energy and climate change. A Senate source familiar with the discussion said “no big decisions” were made, but climate legislation was discussed.

So what does Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have to say about it?

“No. I said no cap-and-trade,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), speaking to reporters in the Capitol.

And … we move one step closer to a climate-free energy bill.

The autos and the utilities could have a nice little symbiotic relationship. While the auto industry has something to build, utility companies have another place to sell their product.

The utilities are hoping for a major shift in vehicles from gasoline to electricity. If such a shift takes place, according to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, oil imports would drop by 52 percent.

The talks are exploratory right now, but worth watching.

In my reporting for the story, I came across a group called the Energy Action Coalition, which has run a nonpartisan campaign called “Power Vote” this election season. The campaign’s purpose is to galvanize young people to persuade other young people to vote for candidates or ballot referendums that promote clean energy, the creation of more green jobs and efforts to control climate change.

So far, Power Vote says it has secured commitments from 300,000 young people to vote this way.

Missouri, California and Colorado all have ballot initiatives dealing with clean energy. Missouri’s initiative calls for 15 percent of the state’s electricity to come from clean energy by 2021. California’s ballot measure, Proposition 7, requires the state’s utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. (The proposition has stirred up controversy because many environmentalists oppose it because they consider its wording confusing and worry that it could backfire and retard renewable-energy growth.) And Colorado’s initiative, supported by Gov. Bill Ritter, seeks to end $300 million in tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and use that money for clean-energy projects and college scholarships.

More detailed accounts of these initiatives can be found here.

As I’ll discuss in today’s piece, voters age 18 to 30 view the environment as a higher priority than older voters. If young people turn out in big numbers tomorrow, they could help move energy and environmental issues to center stage.