“Fortunately, the conditions for international nuclear cooperation have been met,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “We are currently moving in the right direction and we have no fear of legal cooperation, under which all of Iran’s national rights will be preserved, and we will continue our work.”

An Iranian hardline newspaper has indicated that the regime wants two changes to the offer, which, as it stands, would send about 75 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium to Russia and France for processing into a state basically unsuitable for nuclear weapons. Experts believe that would add a year to the time it would take Iran to build a bomb. But Iran, according to the paper, will ask to stagger the shipments of uranium and for immediate weapons-unsuitable uranium shipments into Iran to power a medical-research reactor. The Times says that those changes may “undermine the deal.” We’ll have an idea tomorrow about whether that’s a gambit; what the Iranians will say; and how the United States and its allies will respond.

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.

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.”

“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.”

Turns out, the average coal company spends very little.

Most major coal companies  — including American Electric Power, Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company — are members of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), the group that has come under fire in the past months for its role in sending forged letters to members of Congress criticizing the House climate bill. (Power giant Duke Energy announced after the scandal emerged earlier this month that they dropped out of the group). According to a report that the Center for American Progress put together in April, ACCCE members have committed to spending $3.6 billion on clean coal technology research from 2003 through 2017. Meanwhile, ACCCE members made a combined profit of $297 billion in profits between 2003 and 2008. As CAP points out, that means they are spending less than two cents in research on “clean coal” for every $1 of profit.

The federal government is also putting $2.8 billion toward those CCS projects. But the House climate and energy bill would provide $60 billion for CCS research and development through 2025 if it becomes law. The bill includes $1 billion for CCS demonstration and deployment each year, funded by a fee on consumers of fossil fuel-based electricity. And the bill provides rewards for early movers on CCS — for every ton of CO2 it sequesters, an electric utility that gets at least half its power from coal would receive bonus emission permits for 10 years.

So, while ACCCE plans to spend more than $45 million extolling the virtues of “clean coal” this year, they’re not putting much money down on making it a reality, and they’re doing their best to thwart a bill that would spend billions more on it.

The new 63-member coalition unveiled today aims to combat the attacks against climate action and keep the issue atop the agenda this fall, with members from environmental, faith, labor, and minority groups. It includes big green groups, like Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense Fund, along with unions like the United Steelworkers and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Also on board: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Truman National Security Project, VoteVets, American Hunters and Shooters; Catholics United; Union for Reform Judaism.

The coalition, under the name “Clean Energy Works,” has a hub in Washington, D.C., with paid staffers, as well as organizers on the ground in 28 states whose senators are seen as key swing votes on climate – many of them Midwestern, industrial, and coal states. They’ve already unveiled a Web campaign that compares members of Congress who opposed climate action to cavemen.

Coalition member Environmental Defense Fund also rolled out new national ads last week in the states where the National Association of Manufacturers has been running anti-climate-bill ads.The coalition plans to unveil more ads later this week, and veterans groups involved in the coalition will be in Washington as part of their Operation Free effort to create a national security push for climate action.

“This is the largest, broadest effort to date by quite a bit,” said coalition spokesperson Josh Dorner, who comes to the coalition from Sierra Club. Dorner would not give a dollar figure on what groups are putting into the effort, but said they are “bringing significant resources to bear.”

“Our opponents will vastly outspend us regardless,” he said.

The coalition’s entry comes on the day that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was supposed to introduce the climate legislation she’s coauthoring with John Kerry (D-Mass.). The two announced last week, however, that they are postponing introduction of the bill until “later in September.” Dorner classified it as an “insignificant delay in terms of the big picture.” But it will mean that climate legislation won’t come before the Senate until late fall, likely after the health care debate reaches a conclusion.

While the coalition’s goal is to get a bill passed this year, their greatest challenge is likely to be keeping the issue on the national radar over the next weeks. That and keeping the coalition together when and if a bill is actually presented, as the groups represent a broad range of policy perspectives.

“It will be come more complex when the bills start to take shape. There is a spectrum of opinions in the groups,” said Gillian Caldwell, campaign director at 1Sky, a member of the coalition. “For now it’s about trying to reclaim the debate and keep momentum going, as it’s pretty stalled right now.”

According to the poll, 57 percent of Americans back the proposed changes, with 29 percent opposing them.

And in a debate that has centered largely on the economic impact of cap-and-trade legislation, the most reassuring numbers for the administration might come on the jobs front, where 36 percent of respondents said energy legislation would add jobs in their states, while just 15 percent said it would take away jobs. The plurality — 42 percent — said it would have no impact on jobs.

But support becomes fickle when higher energy costs enter the picture. Although 58 percent would support new legislation if it cost them $10 per month, that number drops to 39 percent if the cost increases to $25. Which means that the equivalent cost of four Big Macs could make or break climate legislation.

If you think the health care propaganda battle has been vicious, wait until the cap-and-trade fight starts in earnest.

“The president (said), ‘I’m not going to kick the can down the road.’ And he said that and I said, ‘Well, that’s something I’m kind of used to from southern Iowa, you know. I know about kicking the can down the road.’ And he said, ‘No, if it makes me a one-term president, I’m going to, we’re going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.’ I respected that very much.”