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.

While the numbers are noteworthy, the real significance here lies in the sponsors of the agreement. Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are, not surprisingly, at the top of the press release. But so are Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) — all moderate Congressmen from coal- or industry-reliant states who were considered swing votes on the bill.

Boucher said he was “pleased with the product we are able to put forward on this issue,” while Dingell, the former Energy and Commerce chairman who has expressed strong reservations about the bill, said the compromise “moves the ball forward significantly in terms of renewable energy, but does so in a framework within which all states can operate.”

The renewable electricity standard is merely one of several controversial components of the legislation. Still, Waxman appears open to compromise, and the moderate Democrats on the committee, who previously expressed concern over the renewable energy provisions, have agreed to what is really only a modest change. Democrats may indeed be able to vote this bill out of committee by Waxman’s Memorial Day target.

Update: Just a few minutes later, the Energy and Commerce leadership sent out another press release, announcing a compromise on the allocation of carbon allowances to the auto industry. The Obama administration has pushed for all allowances to be auctioned off to polluters, not given away for free. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing eleven major vehicle manufacturers, has asked Congress to give the auto industry 5 percent of all allowances for free. The compromise: the industry gets 3 percent of allowances until 2017, and then 1 percent until 2025. Again, Dingell’s name is on the press release. One step closer to a bill that House Democrats can pass.

Update 2: And now they’ve released a compromise on allowances for “energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries,” which will receive 15 percent of allowances, as expected. In 2025, the president (whoever that may be) will determine whether the continued allocation of allowances is needed. What remains: the allocation to electric utilities, which are expected to receive 35 percent of allowances.

The Detroit News reports that Global Wind Systems will open the facility in Novi, Mich., about thirty miles outside of Detroit, and will begin hiring as early as May. Because it requires skilled assembly-line workers, the plant will likely hire its employees from the growing ranks of laid-off auto workers.

Not surprisingly, Global Wind Systems’ plan has grabbed the attention of the region’s unemployed. According to Chief Executive Chris Long, the company has already received thousands of applications, 90 percent of which list auto industry experience.

Of course, 250 jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive layoffs Detroit has suffered. But Long expects to have hired more than 400 employees within two years, and a successful launch in Novi will be likely to attract other wind manufacturers to the region.

Another sign of good things to come: Global Wind Systems’ investment in the new facility was made possible by a $7.3 million tax credit from the Michigan Economic Growth Authority. One expects that the $6 billion in alternative energy investments procured by the stimulus package will allow for many more projects of this type.

Yet the plan has come under some criticism, the basic thrust of which appears to be that it might be too successful.

Some environmentalists have argued that by spurring new car production, it could actually lead to higher carbon emissions, rather than reducing emissions as intended, since 10 to 20 percent of a car’s lifetime emissions come from its manufacturing. Still, with Detroit on its knees and many thousands of Americans out of work, few would argue that stimulating the auto industry would be a bad thing, particularly if it’s producing more fuel-efficient vehicles. There may be merit to this line of reasoning, but it’ll never fly in Congress or with the public at large.

Other critics point to the example of Germany, where a similar cash-for-clunkers program was so popular (car sales rose 11.9 percent in February, as they fell just about everywhere else in the world) that it cost the government three times the anticipated price tag. Sure, Berlin might have to scrounge a bit to come up with the extra 3 billion euros (roughly $4 billion). But if we can turn around Detroit with just a few billion dollars, none but the fiercest deficit hawks will complain — particularly when we’ve already spent over $17 billion trying to do just that, and could end up shelling out as much as $130 billion.

Now, there are some legitimate causes for concern, such as the potential impact of cash-for-clunkers on used car dealerships. Still, with the auto industry in such perilous straits, it’s hard to turn down the prospect of a program that can simultaneously encourage fuel efficiency and improve the long-term health of Detroit.

Shortly after the Treasury announced the auto supplier funding, President Obama, speaking at an electric car plant in southern California, President Obama said that $2.4 billion of the Department of Energy’s stimulus funds would go toward the development and production of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

“This investment will not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Obama said. “It will put Americans back to work.” According to a White House press release, the plan will create “tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.”

Most of the funds — $2 billion — will go to grants to companies that produce electric vehicles and their components. That leaves “up to $400 million to demonstrate and evaluate Plug-In Hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts — like truck stop charging station, electric rail, and training for technicians to build and repair electric vehicles,” according to the press release.

While the $2 billion figure should go a long way toward jumpstarting (ha, ha) the electric car industry, the $400 million can do little more than “demonstrate and evaluate” the broad array of other projects. And the unfortunate timing of the announcement that conventional parts suppliers would get twice as much funding as manufacturers of new, energy-saving technology detracts from the impact what would otherwise be a milestone in the road toward low-emissions transportation.

I caught up with Brown today after he made an appearance at a sustainable energy research event at the National Press Club. With the Senate on the verge of passing the stimulus package, I asked him what he saw as the biggest holes in the bill that need to be filled.

Sen. Sherrod Brown speaking at the National Press Club

“I would like to see more direct spending on infrastructure, but I think that’s a major component of it,” he responded. “I think there should be fewer tax breaks for businesses. … I think you want to kick the demand side a little bit more, but, you know, we can debate all day what’s better and what’s worse. I like the bill overall, I think it’s very good, I think it takes us exactly in the right direction.”

I then asked him whether he preferred the House bill, which provided less money in the way of tax cuts and more for infrastructure spending, aid to states and green investments.

“It doesn’t matter what I prefer,” he said. “I mean, I’m going to vote for the Senate bill today and tomorrow — cloture today and the bill tomorrow. And then we’ll negotiate and we gotta get 60 votes in the Senate.”

In his speech at the Press Club, he emphasized the need to balance environmental and manufacturing concerns. Ideally, he said, a green agenda would create manufacturing jobs rather than hurting industry.

“We’ll literally grow our economy as we protect our environment,” he pledged.

Brown will be someone to watch after the stimulus passes and environmental concerns come to the fore.