In the event that the Administrator or the National Academy of Sciences has concluded, in the most recent report submitted under section 705 or 706 respectively, that the United States will not achieve the necessary domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions, or that global actions will not maintain safe global average surface temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration thresholds, the President shall, not later than July 1, 2015, and every 4 years thereafter, submit to Congress a plan identifying domestic and international actions that will achieve necessary additional greenhouse gas reductions, including any recommendations for legislative action.

And yet Vitter has the bizarre and fact-challenged version of this story up at his Website:

SuperFreakonomics and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) (HarperCollins, WDCpix)

The early reviews for “SuperFreakonomics” have been harsh. The book, wrote Brad Johnson in The Guardian, is a “super freaking mess.” According to environmental journalist Joe Romm, it contains “many, many pieces of outright nonsense” and “major howlers.” In The New Republic, Brad Plumer attacked the book for “garden variety ignorance.” And all of those pans appeared before the book actually hit the shelves this week.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

Authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner didn’t face anything like this three years ago when they published “Freakonomics,” a surprise smash that sold 4 million copies. Unlike that book, which was based entirely on Levitt’s economic research from the University of Chicago, “SuperFreakonomics” is a guided tour of other peoples’ contrarian research and ideas. The final chapter deals with global warming, characterizing the beliefs of pessimistic environmentalists as “religious fervor,” and arguing that the climate change solutions proposed by Al Gore and many Democrats are ineffective and unworkable. It repeats claims that environmental journalists have debated or debunked for years. As a result, the authors are getting some early support from climate change skeptics who feel that attitudes toward their stances are getting brighter.

“It reminds me of what happened when Michael Crichton wrote ‘State of Fear,’” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets some of its funding from the energy industry. “The problem for the left is that there are still some people who don’t toe the party line who have megaphones. And anyone who has a megaphone, they’re going to go after.”

Ebell’s reference to “State of Fear” demonstrated just how meaningful “Freakonomics” could be to people who challenge conventional wisdom about climate change. The late author’s novel, published in 2004, cast as villains environmentalists and eco-terrorists who were perpetrating hoaxes to maintain their power. Coming after Crichton had made some well-publicized and much-maligned remarks skeptical of climate change science, the book was pilloried by environmentalists. It sold more than 1.5 million copies anyway.

In the years since, many climate change skeptics feel that the environmental movement has lost ground culturally and politically. A Pew Research poll released on Thursday found that the number of Americans who believed that man-made global warming was occurring, or that a hotter planet was a serious problem, had fallen precipitously. In April 2008, 71 percent of Americans said that global warming was happening, and 47 percent said it was man-made. In the new poll, only 57 percent of Americans said any global warming was happening, and 36 percent said it was man-made. Many skeptics are taking that poll as a sign that their message is getting through.

“There’s just so much … skepticism now,” said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and one of the most prominent skeptics of climate change in Washington. In making the case that Americans are growing more skeptical, Dempsey said, “the Pew poll is one data point. This book is another data point.”

Levitt and Dubner have engaged their critics in the environmental movement, accusing them of “smears” for suggesting that the climate change chapter of “SuperFreakonomics” makes them “global warming denialists.”

“I think anyone who actually reads that chapter will come away with a better fact-based understanding of the actual issues surrounding global warming,” Levitt told TWI. “That said, I also think that partisans love to cherry-pick, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on.”

Indeed, the climate change skeptics who are excited about “SuperFreakonomics” and the environmentalists who are criticizing the book are focusing on some of the same material. The controversial chapter opens with ironic quotes from Newsweek and New York Times articles from the 1970s that published frightening, if slapdash, research about “global cooling.” That phony scare is a favorite of climate change skeptics, who have attempted to bring it back from obscurity in books and in films like the just-released “Not Evil Just Wrong.”

“The man who came up with that theory, Stephen Snyder, is now one of the people scaring everyone about global warming,” said Martin Hertzberg. The retired meteorologist, who lives in Colorado, has been skeptical of man-made global warming for decades. He has converted the liberal journalist Alexander Cockburn to the belief that, as Cockburn quoted him saying, “the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards,” while getting into scraps with environmental journalists like George Monbiot.

“The idea of man-made global warming is fear-mongering and hysteria,” said Hertzberg. “There are a large number of know-nothing journalists and environmental lobbyists working hard on this, and they’re completely wrong. Al Gore is not a meteorologist. He knows nothing about science.”

Levitt and Dubner do not challenge all of Gore’s arguments about climate change science. What they do challenge is the idea that man’s use of carbon is speeding along a major catastrophe, and that something like cap-and-trade could be the answer. “It’s illogical,” they write, “to believe in a carbon-induced warming apocalypse and believe that such an apocalypse can be averted simply by curtailing new carbon emissions.” Prominent skeptics told TWI that such an argument, from such high-placed experts is long overdue.

“They’re absolutely right,” said Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Look at the numbers. If every nation that has obligations under the Kyoto Protocols adopted the restrictions of Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade legislation], you’d see a 7 percent drop in warming by 2100, about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Michaels, who has not read the book but is planning to pick it up, saluted Levitt and Dubner for tackling an issue that few popular economists touch. “It’s about time that people who do popular economics tell people the truth,” he said. “Fortunately, the planet is not warming.”

While Levitt and Dubner do not actually argue that the planet is not getting warmer, some skeptics are hopeful that the book could direct people to studies that suggest that. “I think it is very important to question the [environmentalist] true believers,” said Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace. Now, as the chairman of Greenspirit Strategies, he does some work for energy companies and supports new nuclear power. “[It's important] as they display all the qualities of doomsday fanatics. There is ample reason to be skeptical, including the fact that the world has been warmer than today for most of the history of life, and the fact that CO2 has been much higher than today through most of the history of life.”

The controversial phrasing and criticism in “SuperFreakonomics” is in the book to make another point. Levitt and Dubner present research into geoengineering, a Gordian Knot solution to a warming planet that, for example, would replicate the effect that a massive eruption of volcano ash can have in making the planet cooler. It’s not a popular idea among some skeptics, who argue that bogus data is responsible for much of the global warming panic. One of those skeptics is Ross McKitrick, a professor at Canada’s University of Guelph whose research suggests that numbers suggesting a spike in global temperature are out of whack. He was hopeful that “SuperFreakonomics” could cut through the “groupthink and political correctness” and expose environmental journalists such as Joe Romm as dishonest activists who can’t accept criticism.

“He’s a former Clinton staffer who runs an attack blog funded by Soros money,” said McKitrick of Romm, whose ClimateProgress blog is a project of the Center for American Progress. “He’s only respected by people who approve of his inflammatory tactics and relentless politicization of the issue.”

Climate change skeptics are excited by the prospect of the general public reading Levitt and Dubner, but they’re expecting the authors to remain targets of an active and desperate green movement. “It will make people think and say, yeah, that’s right, it doesn’t make sense to do this,” said Ebell. “But that will just make the environmentalists even angrier.”

Phelim McAleer, the director of “Not Evil Just Wrong,” said his movie had begun to inspire protests and interruptions. His advice for the authors: Develop tough skin.

“Be prepared for it to get worse before it’s going to better,” said McEleer. “They don’t like questions, as Al Gore showed. Enviromentalist journalists are environmentalists, and they will always side with the environmental establishment. Don’t expect fairness from journalists.”

EPA’s letter today confirms that all 79 permits initially identified on September 11 must undergo additional evaluation by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. EPA’s final list was transmitted in a letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy.  The 79 permits represent all of the backlogged surface coal mining projects under review by the Army Corps of Engineers. After a careful evaluation of these surface coal mining projects, EPA determined that each of them, as currently proposed, is likely to result in significant harm to water quality and the environment and are therefore not consistent with requirements of the [Clean Water Act].

As Ward points out, this doesn’t mean that the 79 projects will be rejected. But they could be altered if the EPA — which has been a more aggressive environmental watchdog under this administration than under the last — determines that they do indeed violate the Clean Water Act.

Environmental groups were quick to applaud the decision. Mary Anne Hitt, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, issued a statement saying the further review “will surely prove that this most destructive form of coal mining is incompatible with clean water.”

Congress is best suited to determine how a national greenhouse gas emissions reduction program should work. Therefore, any bill should explicitly preempt the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Translation: They want Congress to empower Congress to do the EPA’s job.

This is an odd argument, considering that the EPA scientists would know vastly more about emissions science than any lawmaker on the Hill. So what does the Roundtable have in mind? Well, for one thing, the group appears to recognize that elected lawmakers are influenced much more easily by public outrage than unelected EPA officials. It also seems to be well aware of lawmakers’ tendency to protect regional industries, even when that protection runs counter to national interests. Having Congress monitor  compliance with new emission guidelines would almost guarantee that the rules wouldn’t be enforced as strictly, to the polluters’ benefit. Indeed, it’s groups like the Roundtable that are spending millions of dollars to ensure that leniency.

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.”

No Republican contenders in the 2010 gubernatorial contest — except environmental activist Leslie Davis — believe in global warming, according to a report from Minnesota Public Radio. Perhaps most strident is state Sen. Mike Jungbauer (East Bethel), who told attendees at a recent State Fair debate that global warming is “pure, unadulterated BS.”

While the other GOP contenders were less colorful in their declarations, none would own up to believing that climate change owing to human activity is a credible, significant issue. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert (Marshall) declared such concerns to be “theoretical.” Rep. David Hann (Eden Prairie) labeled global warming an “excuse” to shift towards alternative energy sources.

As The Independent’s Paul Demko notes, Minnesota’s current Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, doesn’t dispute that climate change is real — even if he hasn’t shown much leadership on the issue lately.

In a state that President Obama carried by 10 points in 2008, expressing skepticism on climate change might help a Republican win a primary, but it could be a very risky general election strategy.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

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 Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capitol blog has the basics. As expected, the price of permits hit an record low last week, caused by both the over-abundant credits and the falling demand. Credits sold for $2.19 per ton, down 30 percent from the last sale in June, when they went for $3.23 per ton.

This is interesting because RGGI is essentially the Northeast’s pilot project for a larger federal program that Congress is considering enacting. There are also several lessons here. One is that the overabundance of credits on the market mirrors one of the early problems in the European Union’s Emission Trading System. The failure to properly determine the necessary number of credits is what prevented the program from being effective in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in its early years. If credits are cheap and plentiful, the market does not create the need for industries to lower emissions as quickly.

But it also speaks to two other issues more relevant to the current situation in the United States, as WSJ’s Keith Johnson points out. One is that the recession had decreased demand for electricity, which in turn has reduced emissions and thus, demand for emission permits. He also notes that new discoveries of natural gas reserves in the U.S. have lowered the cost of that fossil-fuel alternative, which burns cleaner than coal. More power companies are switching to natural gas to meet emissions-reduction requirements, which has also lowered the demand for credits.

Most important, though, is that the businesses covered under the cap are on a path to meet their emissions reduction goals at a much lower cost than anticipated. They’re also looking to come in well under the cap that the plan sets out, in fact. This should be a relief for businesses, but is not necessarily a good thing for the environmental goals, since a tight cap is what drives innovation and the development of new energy sources.

What are the lessons for a federal plan? Foremost is the need for an accurate inventory of greenhouse gas emissions before a cap is put in place, and for the number of credits put on the market to reflect that. The EPA already puts out an annual inventory, but they’re still in the process of developing a new rule that will require each major emissions source in the United States to report its output – which will provide a more accurate starting point for a federal cap-and-trade system.

It also demonstrates the need for a cap-and-trade program to include regular revisits to the policy to update it as needed. These are often called “look-back” provisions, and they allow the program to be tinkered as necessary to meet the stated goals. A RGGI review is not scheduled until 2012, which means it’s unlikely that administrators will be able to tighten the program before then.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (WDCpix)

In May 2008, Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) delivered the final text of the Climate Security Act, the failed bill to conquer climate change. She included with her summary a long list of how the $6.7 trillion in pollution permits would be distributed.

Some observers equated Boxer’s list to a deli counter for special interests – line up, get a number, get a cut. The document read like a massive wish-list, and included “transition assistance” for every fossil fuel and heavy industry, and handouts to agriculture, the building sector, renewable energies, “clean” coal, cellulosic biofuels, truck fleets, firefighters, and state energy programs. The bill, which Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) co-sponsored and Boxer ushered through the Senate, aimed to slash carbon dioxide emissions 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. The plan would create a cap-and-trade system that would require polluting entities to acquire permits to emit carbon dioxide. Some would be auctioned, while others would be handed out for free. In total, the plan would be worth trillions over the 38-year lifetime of the bill. It included a significant amount of money for consumer tax relief, but that was lost in the list of industry hand-outs. While Boxer’s allocations were the result of clear political and economic calculations, it wasn’t presented in a way that helped her sell it to the public.

Now, with the country wrapped up in the worst recession in decades and Republicans gearing up to malign climate legislation as just another tax on hard-working Americans, Boxer is going to have an even tougher time selling a climate plan. Her job will become more difficult if it reads like a laundry list of handouts to industry, while increasing costs on average energy consumers. Whatever climate bill Boxer puts on the table this fall will likely have a similar dollar figure attached, worth trillions over the bill’s lifespan. As she shapes the bill this year, however, Boxer seems to be taking more time and deliberation in crafting her plan for distributing value of a climate program, figuring out a way to keep costs low and making other “tweaks,” as she has told reporters. Environmental advocates say they are confident that stronger 2020 emissions reductions targets are among the tweaks she’s going to make to the House bill, but that would likely make the plan more expensive.

One of the reasons the House was able to pass a bill in June was that they employed more effective messaging on the costs and benefits of legislation than Boxer did last year, according to advocates who have worked closely with Congress on the bills. House leaders pushing the legislation billed each allocation as pursuing one of three goals — creating new jobs, supporting the development of clean energy technology, or reducing costs to consumers. “I think that’s what was maybe missing a little bit — without criticizing Boxer’s staff — last year,” said Nathaniel Keohane, director of economic policy and analysis
 at Environmental Defense Fund. “I think one thing the House was able to do, with the benefit of the lessons learned from the Senate process, was to block out and frame what we were trying to do and accomplish with the allocations. I think that people didn’t get that same message coming out of the Senate.”

Boxer and co-author Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have bought themselves some extra time to figure out what tweaks they need to make to get a bill through the Senate this year, announcing in late August that they were pushing back the release of their bill for several weeks. While they had planned to release it shortly after Congress returned from recess, they’re now saying it will be out “later in September.” It appears Boxer and Kerry are using the time to craft a plan that comes with the lowest price tag – and can bring on the 60 votes needed to pass the bill while fending off “cap-and-tax” allegations from the right. Kerry acknowledged last week that bringing the costs for consumers lower is among their primary objectives at this point. “We’re burning and churning with CBO and with the EPA,” Kerry told E&E. “We’re just running by them. The minute you nix something here, or change something, you change the overall formula and outcomes. And we need to know what the costs are, and what the impacts are.”

Environmental advocates are pushing Boxer to raise the targets of the bill, possibly back to cutting emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 – the goal included in the original draft of the House bill, but reduced to 17 percent before final passage. Boxer endorsed a target of 19 percent last year, indicating that she’s interested in tougher targets. But Boxer has been keeping her cards close to her chest, offering few specifics on the bill. It’s clear, though, that the price tag is going to be a key element to gaining public support and the 60 votes necessary to move the bill, with numerous swing-vote senators expressing concerns about the impact on individual consumers and the overall economy. It seems Boxer’s biggest challenge this year may be not just how to adjust the bill to hit a sweet spot on cost, but how to sell it – which means no laundry list of handouts like last year.

Public support will be built around keeping costs to individual consumers low. The Energy Information Administration found that the House bill would increase household costs about $83 per year. The Environmental Protection Agency put the cost slightly higher, at between $88 and $140 per household per year, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated about $175 a year by 2020.

Industry groups have offered up higher figures. The National Association of Manufacturers released a study in August that concluded that the House bill would increase costs for each household between $118 to $250 by 2020, and $730 to $1,248 by 2030.

Kerry said in a speech on Thursday that they’re “still working with colleagues, negotiating” on what they’d need to see in a bill to support it. “We have to get 60 votes, so we’re looking at ways to patch together a coalition,” said Kerry. “I think people will be surprised by some of the things we put in there to get the coalition we need together.”

There will of course be competing visions of what it means to keep costs low, and whether that will be costs for consumers or for industry. Those in the business and power sectors, and some in Congress, want a bill to include strong provisions to keep the cost of pollution permits from rising too high. One such proposal, often called an offramp, would put additional pollution permits on the market if the price of carbon gets too high. Others want a set floor and ceiling price on carbon permits. Changes of that sort would give Boxer’s environmental allies pause, as the point of a cap-and-trade plan is to let the market drive the price of permits — forcing companies to change their practices when polluting becomes too expensive.

There’s also the question of lowering costs for consumers. The House bill compensates for increased energy costs by giving 30 percent of allowances to local electrical distribution companies, which are required to pass the value of permits on to their customers, which they could do by providing rebates or possibly investing in energy efficiency. “Ratepayers aren’t going to be happy when they see their bills going up through the roof,” said Rob Thormeyer, a spokesperson for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the national organization that represents the state boards that regulate LDCs. “If you give them a way to ease the pain, for lack of a better term, you will find this to be an easier transition.”

The bill will provide rebates for lowest-income Americans. Some groups, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an economic policy think tank focusing on low- and moderate-income households, argue that there would be a greater benefit for average consumers by redirecting more cap-and-trade generated money to this type of direct rebate.

House leaders won high praise from proponents by making a strong case for how each of their allocations helped either offset costs for low-income families, create or protect jobs, and aid with transition to a low-carbon economy. “I think that made a big difference in terms of being able to have a coherent vision in terms of the allocations,” said Keohane.

According to Keohane, the senators need to ask whether each allocation helps American consumers and households, protects jobs, or aides in the transition to a clean energy economy. “If you can’t answer one of those questions ‘yes,’ then it doesn’t belong,” said Keohane. “That’s the kind of test that the Senate needs to apply, and I think the House did a good job of.”

This article has been updated for clarity.

“The administration pledged earlier this year to improve review of mining projects that risked harming water quality. Release of this preliminary list is the first step in a process to assure that the environmental concerns raised by the 79 permit applications are addressed and that permits issued are protective of water quality and affected ecosystems,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We look forward to working closely with the Army Corps of Engineers, with the involvement of the mining companies, to achieve a resolution of EPA’s concerns that avoids harmful environmental impacts and meets our energy and economic needs.”

The EPA is also planning to review a longer list of proposed projects over the next 15 days. There will be a 60-day review process for each permit.

Activists organizing against surface mining projects like mountain-top removal, a method that blasts mountains to extract coal reserves, were pleased by the development. “By recommending these permits not be approved, the EPA and the Army Corps has demonstrated their intention to fulfill a promise to provide science-based oversight which will limit the devastating environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining,” said Willa Mays, executive director for Appalachian Voices, in a statement.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.