That proposal, first floated in July, was sure to draw big crowds and heated debate both evenings beginning at 5 p.m. in the Jackson Ballroom of the Sangre de Cristo Arts & Conference Center, but in the wake of partial meltdowns at two Japanese nuclear reactors and problems at two other facilities in the wake of Friday’s devastating earthquake, the proposal will likely bring even closer scrutiny. The Japan disaster has sent shockwaves through the world’s resurgent nuclear industry that could impact Colorado’s uranium-mining revival.

The Pueblo County Planning Commission already signed off on the plan, voting 5-3 to recommend zoning changes that would allow for the 40-square-mile energy park proposed by local attorney Don Banner and supported by Puebloans for Energizing Our Community LLC.

“The world needs energy,” Banner told the Pueblo Chieftain in July. “The United States is behind the eight ball when it comes to nuclear energy.”

Actually, the United States leads the world with 104 nuclear reactors, nearly twice as many as second-place France (58). But as a percentage of electrical power, the U.S. only gets about 20 percent from nuclear compared to nearly 80 percent for France.

Colorado has no active nuclear power plants, and many conservationists say nuclear is too pricey (Banner’s plant could cost more than $5.5 billion) and consumes too much water in a mostly arid state like Colorado. Now they’re likely to hammer even harder on safety concerns that have made the U.S. nuclear industry relatively dormant since the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in the Ukraine in 1986.

The Heritage Foundation points out that the technology at the nuclear plants in trouble in Japan is older and far less efficient and safe than today’s designs, but according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are 23 General Electric Mark 1 reactors like the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 that are currently operating in the United States.

Rep. Edward Markey, D–Mass., on Saturday warned that a disaster such as the one unfolding in Japan could happen here in the United States and called for a moratorium on locating any new reactors in seismically active areas as well as tighter NRC regulation of containment technology for facilities in such areas. Pueblo and Colorado in general are not known as particularly earthquake-prone areas.

“As a result of this disaster, the world is now facing the looming threat of a possible nuclear meltdown at one of the damaged Japanese nuclear reactors,” Markey said Saturday. “I hope and pray that Japanese experts can successfully bring these reactors under control and avert a Chernobyl-style disaster that could release large amounts of radioactive materials into the environment.”

Here is a transcript from the folks at Think Progress:

LIDDY: Is there any chance that you fellas can talk to [House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred] Upton and get our light bulbs back, for heaven’s sake?

McCOTTER: Yes, yes. I saw that some on the left were praising the end of the incandescent bulb, at the very time they’re talking about an innovation economy. The irony is striking. One of the greatest innovations in American history was the incandescent bulb and I think we got to put it back where people can use them again.

I’m afraid the irony has been reversed here. First of all, incandescent light bulbs have not been banned. A provision in the 2007 energy bill sponsored by Upton phases in a requirement that light bulbs be at least 25 percent more efficient than they currently are. The incandescent bulbs currently in use do not meet that standard, but the requirement will, of course, spur more innovation to ensure that they do.

Secondly, the bulbs on the market that do meet that new efficiency standard — compressed flourocarbon, or CFL bulbs — were invented by an American, Ed Hammer of General Electric. And they save on energy and last longer than incandescent bulbs. Sounds like American innovation to me.

In November 2010, Chu addressed (PDF) a gathering of journalists at the National Press Club, and put forward his vision for U.S.-led innovation in clean technology. Chu described the creation of a new innovation race with the same urgency as President Eisenhower called on the U.S. to get a satellite into orbit after Soviet Union’s successful launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957.

“When it comes to innovation, Americans don’t take a back seat to anyone – and we certainly won’t start now,” said Secretary Chu. “From wind power to nuclear reactors to high speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead. Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it’s time for America to do what we do best: innovate. As President Obama has said, we should not, cannot, and will not play for second place.”

Though aptly named the ‘Sputnik race’ for the urgency with which the U.S. needs to address its lagging position as a world innovator in the clean energy field, Chu was careful to point out that this innovation requires bilateral agreements between the U.S., China and other developing nations who are currently leading a global clean tech revolution, including India and Brazil.

Past meeting between the U.S. and China on energy matters have ended in deadlock. In the nail-bitingly tense closing meetings at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, China and the U.S. refused to compromise on who should take the responsibility for the bulk of emissions: China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and an emerging economy, or, the U.S., historically the world’s largest emitter and the largest emitter on a per capita basis. Continued reluctance to address key responsibilities for carbon emissions left the 2010 Climate Change meeting in Cancun, Mexico, also without a binding treaty.

On its home turf, China’s dominance in the global solar industry is causing contention in the U.S. The Obama administration is currently reviewing a complaint (PDF) from the United States Steelworkers union that China has violated free trade rules with its subsidization of renewable energy companies. And the market dominance by Chinese companies in California following the passage of the California Solar Initiative (CSI) in 2007 –- which offers subsidized solar panels to homes and businesses -– is also raising questions about how the current administration plans to marry the two central principles of its energy policy — energy independence and domestic job creation.

Chu’s Soviet-era rhetoric seems to be a thinly-veiled call for the U.S. to step up its clean tech innovation game. And it will be interesting to see how it plays in to the next four days of meetings between the two leaders.

Topping the list, with $38,500, was U.S. Sen. Phil Hare (D-Ill.).

From the Center for Public Integrity:

Ethanol subsidies have returned to the Congressional agenda as lawmakers prepare to consider extending tax subsidies and tariffs for the alternative fuel. The issue has divided elected officials of both parties, with farm state lawmakers generally backing a five-year extension of the 45 cent per gallon subsidy for the fuel made from corn, sugar, and other plant material.

A bipartisan group of 17 senators, including Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, recently signed a letter opposing the incentives as “fiscally responsible and environmentally unwise.” Last week, another bipartisan group of 15 senators wrote their own letter urging that the Senate renew the ethanol incentives before the end of the year.

Five of the industries top 10 recipients of political donations, including Hare, lost re-election this fall. And even with the large investment, ethanol was dwarfed by the oil industry. For example, over the same period that all ethanol interest donated nearly $1 million, Exxon Mobil’s corporate PAC donated more than $1.4 million.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) talked last week about moving a renewable energy standard during the lame-duck session. But according to a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the conversation, it appears that Reid decided there isn’t enough support to do so.

From the story:

Backers of a renewable energy standard, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, are keeping their fingers crossed that such a proposal can move in the lame-duck session. “We’re optimistic about the lame duck,” said one RES proponent who was not authorized to talk on the record.

Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) spoke on the phone Tuesday about the possibility of moving an RES during the lame duck. Bingaman’s spokesman, Bill Wicker, would not discuss the call. “This was a private conversation between two Members, so I have to respect that,” he said in an email. “But we all should know more about the lame duck before much longer.”

But a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the conversation downplayed the possibility that an RES would be brought up for a vote during the lame-duck session. “They had a good conversation and agreed it will be challenging to get 60 votes for expedited consideration of an RES during the limited time left in the session,” the aide said of discussion between Reid and Bingaman. Indeed, RES supporters would need to secure the support of two to four Republicans in addition to the four who already support the bill in order to get 60 votes.

But it turns out he’s not the only one seeking the position. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) also announced his interest in the position yesterday.

In a letter to House Democrats, Markey explained his decision. “I do so because I believe the twin issues of energy and the environment will be of paramount importance in the next Congress, and the Natural Resources Committee will be a critical forum in which the national debate over these issue will be played out,” he said.

Markey will likely have his work cut out for him. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) is the leading contender to take over as chairman of the committee. In a statement released last week, Hastings said his priorities include increasing domestic energy production “through an all-of-the-above energy plan” and ensuring that the Obama administration is held “accountable” for its new offshore drilling policies.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the current chairman of the committee, is seeking the ranking spot on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The current chairman, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), lost his re-election bid.

In his letter, Markey also acknowledged that the fate of the other committee he chairs, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is in question. Some Republicans have said they’ll abolish the committee, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) established in 2006.

Well, I think I’ve been willing to compromise in the past and I’m going to be willing to compromise going forward on a whole range of issues.  Let me give you an example — the issue of energy that I just mentioned. I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.  But that doesn’t mean there isn’t agreement that we should have a better energy policy. And so let’s find those areas where we can agree.

Obama specifically mentioned a number of broad issues where he believes Democrats and Republicans can find consensus, including expanding the use of natural gas resources, incentivizing electric vehicles and developing a more robust nuclear power industry.

Obama continued:

Let’s go ahead and start making some progress on the things that we do agree on, and we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we don’t.

In that spirit, I thought I’d outline some of the policy proposals that could get bipartisan support in Congress.

At a press conference with environmentalists today, I asked Anna Aurilio, director of the Washington office of Environment America, what she thought could pass next Congress. She mentioned a renewable energy standard, which would require a certain percentage of the country’s electricity to come from renewable sources like wind and solar. Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) introduced an RES in late September. The bill gained a number of Republican co-sponsors, and proponents are convinced it can pass the Senate.

But Republican gains in the Senate could mean a renewed push to add nuclear power and so-called clean coal into the mix. Aurilio said that environmentalists are “concerned” about that potential scenario and stressed that coal and nuclear are outside the bounds of an RES.

Other possible bipartisan proposals include the Homestar bill, which would give consumers incentives to make their homes more efficient; a proposal on appliance efficiency; a bill to extend a Treasury grant program for renewables; and a bill to establish a land and water conservation fund.

Asked about the oil spill response bill — which was passed by the House, but was never passed in the Senate — Aurilio said simply, “It needs to happen.” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski, asked by TWI about the oil spill response bill, said, “It should have already passed,” and acknowledged that it will be difficult to pass such a bill in the lame-duck session. While the prospects for passage in the next Congress are also unclear, Karpinski said the results of the national oil spill commission’s investigation may provide an incentive to move the bill forward.

For more on energy bills that could pass next Congress, see this piece by Dan Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

“I don’t think there’s anybody in America that thinks we’ve got an energy policy that’s working,” Obama said, specifically citing natural gas vehicles and the use of natural gas as overlapping priorities of Republicans and Democrats.

The big question, as Obama put it, is: “How do we move forward on that agenda?”

It’s true that there are overlapping priorities, but as I reported today, it’s still going to be an uphill climb to pass significant energy legislation in the next Congress, given massive Republican gains in the House and Senate.

Senate:

Alaska: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is facing off against Republican Joe Miller, a Tea Party favorite, and Democrat Scott McAdams. The Associated Press reports that all the candidates engaged yesterday in a last-minute push to gain votes. Even Bill Clinton got in on the action, doing a robocall for McAdams. This race is hugely important on the energy front because Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Despite her opposition to recent cap-and-trade proposals, she has worked closely over the years with committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), most notably on their comprehensive energy bill, which received bipartisan support in committee, but never made it to a floor vote (much to Bingaman and Murkowski’s chagrin). If Murkowski loses, Alaska loses a senator with seniority on energy issues, and that’s exactly the message Murkowski has been sending in campaign speeches.

California: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is in a tight race with her Republican opponent Carly Fiorina. Boxer is the head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has been a key player in drafting climate change legislation (remember the Kerry-Boxer bill?). But amid accusations that she is too partisan, Boxer played a largely behind-the-scenes role in the most recent Senate run at climate change legislation. Instead, a bipartisan trio of lawmakers — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and, for a while a least, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — took the lead. Fiorina, for her part, has raised questions about climate science.

Colorado: This race is mostly important because of the extent to which environmentalists don’t want Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D-Colo.) opponent, Ken Buck, to win. The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have trashed Buck in ads, highlighting his comments questioning whether climate change is man-made. Environmentalists have made Buck the poster child of Republican climate skeptics running this cycle. For his part, Buck’s spokesman said his official position is this: “Ken believes climate change is occurring, but that it’s natural more than man-made.” Bennet, for his part, has said he does not support the House version of cap-and-trade, but his campaign said recently that he would support a “well-thought-out, market-based bill.” Buck’s campaign jumped on the comments, saying Bennet’s position on the issue is unclear.

Nevada: Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) re-election bid has to make pretty much every one of these lists because, well, he’s the Senate majority leader. His opponent, Tea Party darling Sharron Angle, is slightly ahead in polls. While Reid has faced some criticism from environmentalists, often not in public, for being too hesitant to move forward on climate and energy legislation, most fear the implications of a loss by Reid. Though prospects for a comprehensive climate bill are next to non-existent in the next two years, environmentalists are hoping to pass a number of energy/environment bills next year, including proposals to incentivize electric vehicles, weatherize homes, respond to the oil spill and require that a certain portion of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar.

House:

VA-5: Freshman Rep. Tom Perriello is in a tight race against state Sen. Robert Hurt (R). The Perriello race is seen by many Republicans as a referendum on President Obama’s policies. Perriello, from a conservative Southern Virginia district, voted for both cap-and-trade and the health care bill and has been taking flack at home for it. In an attempt to come to Perriello’s rescue, environmentalists have run ads criticizing Hurt as a friend of big oil. Even President Obama got in on the action, campaigning for Perriello late last week.

MN-8: Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is in a nail biter against his Republican challenger, Chip Cravaack. The latest polls show the race incredibly tight. Oberstar, as head of the transportation panel, is one of the key lawmakers charged with reviewing pipeline safety in the aftermath of a massive oil pipeline spill in Michigan and a natural gas pipeline explosion in California.

Proposition 23:

While the latest polling says that Prop 23, which would essentially overturn California’s landmark climate change law, will fail, it’s still on our radar.

Proposition 26:

The lesser-known California ballot initiative, Prop 26 would require a two-thirds majority vote for the state legislature to impose any new fee on industry. If it passes, it could also impact the state’s climate law because it would make it difficult to enforce through the legislature, the Los Angeles Times notes.

But the plan also has a number of potential national implications. In order to convince voters that it’s worth their while to allow her to keep her Senate seat, Murkowski pledged to leverage her power as ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure that the state expands its drilling activities and is able to bring its natural gas supplies to market in the contiguous United States.

In a statement, Murkowski’s re-election campaign gently reminded voters of the senator’s power to authorize and appropriate money for the Interior Department, the agency with control over the country’s offshore and onshore drilling operations. In fact, the campaign notes that Murkowski can block Interior Department appropriations that will restrict drilling in Alaska.

According to the campaigns statement on the announcement today:

It is critical for Alaskans to remember Sen. Murkowski’s dual positions of authorizing and appropriating power over the Interior Department, slated for next year in the Senate. Not only will Lisa have enough votes in the Energy Committee to pass ANWR votes for any committee bill, but she will have the power to deny any appropriations that go towards further restricting Alaska’s federal oil and gas fields, including offshore fields. This position is unprecedented for any Alaskan member of Congress.

In addition, Murkowski pledged to use her seniority to push for the construction of a natural gas pipeline to transport Alaska’s natural gas resources to the rest of the United States. “In recent weeks I’ve spoken to a number of energy leaders in Alaska, leaders with an aggressive vision for getting Alaska’s natural gas to market and making sure that our in-state needs are met, especially here in Fairbanks where fuel and electricity prices are so high that they are straining budgets and affecting the local economy,” she said.

For more on Murkowski’s energy priorities in the next Congress, see this statement from her campaign.