If Republicans take over the House, it seems likely that Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will get the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Though Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking Republican, has expressed interest in the position, Republicans appear unlikely to grant him the necessary waiver to take over the panel because of his reputation as a BP apologist.

On top of that, Politico reports today that Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) may take over as the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s telecommunications subcommittee next Congress, leaving his leadership spot on the environment subcommittee, because he knows it will be difficult to pass significant climate legislation.

Republicans have also said that they would like to get rid of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Markey currently chairs, if they take over Congress.

On the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it looks like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will stay on as ranking Republican if she wins her re-election bid. Republicans debated taking away her ranking position a while back, but decided not to. Of course, that decision could change after the elections. Murkowski has been campaigning in part on her seniority on the committee.

Until they did. Suddenly, advocates of tight immigration enforcement are up in arms, claiming that the measure to protect the environment of this mountainous terrain would hinder Border Patrol and allow a new flood of immigrants to enter New Mexico. And an increase in activity by immigrants and cartels, in turn, could actually end up hurting the environment, they argue.

But environmental groups say this argument is just a political ploy to clamp down on immigration. It’s a complicated debate, with no clear answers. The full Senate will be considering the bill sometime after it reconvenes, and much is up in the air. Elise Foley has the full story.

Border Patrol agents survey land near the U.S.-Mexico border. (Mark Allen Johnson/ZUMA Press)

On July 21, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources unanimously approved a bill to designate part of the Organ Mountains in southern New Mexico as wilderness. It was a routine measure — the committee passes several federal land designation bills each year — that generated little debate at the time and seemed destined to pass the full Senate without fanfare when it eventually reached the chamber floor.

[Immigration1] But in the intervening months, the innocuous-appearing bill has sparked a surprising amount of controversy, as immigration enforcement advocates have expressed concern that it could hamper border security and send a flood of illegal immigrants into New Mexico.

In other wilderness areas, particularly Pima County in southern Arizona, wilderness designation areas set by the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1990 have at times corresponded with areas with higher levels of illegal immigration. Most experts dismiss the connection and attribute the rise in immigration to increased border enforcement elsewhere: As fences and security made it more difficult to cross the border into California, immigrant guides, or “coyotes,” began to move through lands where they could better avoid detection.

But pro-immigration enforcement groups claim that federal wildlife designations are to blame for illegal immigration in Arizona, and that the wilderness designation proposed by New Mexico Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall would make New Mexico the new hotbed for illegal border crossing.

The argument goes like this: In lands designated as wilderness, Border Patrol cannot build roads or surveillance posts because of environmental concerns. As a result, more illegal immigrants and drug cartels enter the country through un-policed land.

“It’s like a big welcome mat to the cartels,” said Janice Kephart, director of national security policy at Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-enforcement group. “They know the designation is there, they know they can start using it.”

This increase in illegal activity, enforcement advocates argue, can actually undermine the environmental goals of a wilderness designation, since the new flood of border-crossers damages the lands the government is trying to protect.

These claims are all the subject of heated debate, at the center of which is the question of how best to balance environmental concerns and border enforcement — or whether the two truly are mutually exclusive.

There is no easy answer; the Department of Homeland Security has struggled with the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture over how Border Patrol can work under strict guidelines in the federal lands along the border. In theory, tensions between the agencies were ironed out in a 2006 memorandum of understanding that allows for some exceptions to land designations, such as emergency access to lands without permission. But according to an Oct. 19 report from the Government Accountability Office, 15 percent of Border Patrol officials said regulations from the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department have prevented them from catching illegal border crossers.

The laws that govern federal lands along the border can hold up a patrolling process that requires speedy adaptability. While Border Patrol shifts its resources and patrolling to react to changing pathways used by immigrants and smugglers, federal law requires agents to receive permission from the other agencies before it can build roads or establish surveillance posts. The GAO report said the process can often take months.

But despite these delays, most of the agents in charge along the border — 22 of the 26 lead agents in the southwest region — told the GAO that overall security in their jurisdiction was not affected by the land management laws. Instead, the Border Patrol leaders said their challenge was the terrain itself, which in many areas is mountainous or otherwise difficult to navigate.

Still, Republicans and anti-illegal immigration groups have latched onto tension over federal land designations as a cause for the number of unauthorized immigrants who move across the border each year. They argue that the laws funnel illegal activity through certain areas where Border Patrol agents are less likely to catch them — and where they can destroy the wildlife that the designations are designed to protect.

In a report released this month, Kephart wrote that the Bingaman-Udall bill would likely lead to a groundswell of illegal immigration to New Mexico, where immigrants would then leave trash and waste behind and devastate the local land.

Wilderness designation laws are too outdated and strict to allow Border Patrol agents to act effectively, she told TWI. Overall, the wilderness designations hurt border security by limiting patrol actions within certain areas and requiring Border Patrol to pay mitigating fees to the Department of the Interior for lands it harms.

Kephart said the best decision for both border security and the environment would be to allow Border Patrol unfettered access to enforce immigration within wilderness areas.

“If by allowing the border patrol in, you can help save the environment and secure the country, that’s a double win,” Kephart said. “The cartels don’t care about people, let along the environment.”

The argument is standard among critics of federal land designations along the border. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), one of the leaders of the movement in Congress, gave an impassioned 37-minute speech on the House floor in June arguing that illegal border crossers and drug cartels do massive damage to the border landscape.

“The sole purpose of trying to stop the border patrol is because of the fear they may cause damage to the environment,” Bishop said on the floor. “The bad guys, the drug cartels, the human smugglers, the potential terrorists: they’re not inhibited by any of that. They go into that area and they don’t care what kind of environmental damage they do.”

Melanie Emerson, executive director of the border region environmental group Sky Island Alliance, said these claims are “wholly unsubstantiated by science.” Most of the harm done to the environment along the border is due to border infrastructure, such as fencing, that prevents animals from migrating and changes the ecosystem.

“One of the issues that they talk about a lot is garbage, but while there are patches of trash, trash is mitigatable,” Emerson said. “You send volunteers out, you pick it up and it’s gone. Border infrastructure is permanent and it unequivocally alters natural processes. That whole system of security far exceeds — by magnitudes of 10 — trash.”

Wilderness designations are important because they allow species to live in a protected space as much of their natural habitat is taken over by cities and sprawl, Emerson said. She said environmental arguments against wilderness designations are disingenuous and a means to limit illegal immigration, not to protect the environment.

The Center for Immigration Studies has attempted for years to tie illegal immigration to concerns about climate change and overpopulation. There are numerous reports on the group’s website arguing for population stabilization and tying illegal immigration to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

When it comes to the Bingaman-Udall bill, however, concerns about the environment seem somewhat misplaced. The bill would change the land from a wilderness testing area, which has many of the same limitations for Border Patrol, to a wilderness area. This would be the final step in a process that was started in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration first set the land aside for protected status, and continued when the George H.W. Bush administration recommended the area for full wilderness status. The bill includes provisions that expand the land that Border Patrol can easily access for patrolling and surveillance.

Border Patrol worked with the senators’ offices on the bill, which includes a section on how border enforcement can work within the changes. Border Commissioner Alan Bersin wrote a letter to Bingaman on June 1 acknowledging the Border Patrol-friendly aspects of the bill, such as an expanded “buffer” area for patrols and clarification that the bill would not restrict agents from pursuing suspects in restricted areas or conducting low-level overflights.

Jude McCartin, a spokeswoman for Bingaman, said the senator was focused from the beginning on maintaining Border Patrol access as the land transitioned to wilderness designation.

“They were very mindful of the security needs along the border and what makes this unique in all of that,” she said. “Neither congressman would want to do anything to harm national security.”

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.

The coalition, a coalition of business groups that advocates for policies that support electric vehicles, has been lobbying for passage of a bill authored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would “extend and expand national incentives to accelerate the introduction of electric cars and trucks throughout the country,” according to Dorgan’s office.

The bill passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July and was included in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) slimmed-down energy bill. But the bill failed to move before the August recess. Senate aides say Reid is hoping to move an energy bill either in the lame-duck session or early next year. President Obama lent his support to the effort in a Rolling Stone interview published on the web yesterday.

In an interview with The Washington Independent, Robbie Diamond, president of the Electrification Coalition, said, “It’s a low percentage chance that things get done in the lame-duck session, but we’re incredibly optimistic that something can get done at the beginning of the next congress.”

Diamond said the electric vehicle bill will likely be included in a slimmed-down energy bill with other proposals that have won bipartisan support. “If you watch all the signs, gigantic, comprehensive bills are not in vogue at the moment. I think it could be coupled with one or two other bipartisan, important energy proposals,” he said.

Politico, in a breaking news alert, reports:

Senate Republicans have decided not to strip Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) of her top position on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But the Senate Republican Conference has voted to install Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to serve as the vice chairman position of the conference — a leadership position Murkowski resigned last week.

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.

Provisions setting up the so-called Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or CEDA, were included in the broad energy legislation passed by Bingaman’s committee last summer. But, Bingaman acknowledged in the op-ed, it is highly unlikely that the bill can pass this year. Instead, Bingaman calls for passage of legislation establishing CEDA.

According to Bingaman:

This bipartisan proposal for a Clean Energy Deployment Administration was designed to accelerate the technology revolution we need. CEDA would help move a wide range of clean energy technologies from laboratory to marketplace, combining the technological expertise of the Department of Energy with a new, independently overseen cadre of business professionals who can craft the financial support that entrepreneurs need to negotiate the “valley of death” where new technologies languish for lack of investment support.

CEDA would have a broad mandate to identify, on a continuing basis, technologies with the best potential to deliver sustainable energy with the most efficient use of federal dollars.

A broad comprehensive energy bill may not be possible in this Congress. But action on common-sense bipartisan proposals like CEDA should not be put off. If we want to realize the energy security, environmental security and economic benefits of the clean energy revolution, then the investments we need in clean energy technology deployment cannot wait.

Look for CEDA to become  a major topic of discussion in the coming weeks on the Hill. Bingaman rarely throws his support behind a proposal unless he knows that it has a chance of passage. And with the fate of energy legislation, even a scaled-back version that focuses on efficiency and vehicles, up in the air, CEDA could be environmentalists’ only hope for a legislative victory this year.

The op-ed comes as Bill Wicker, Bingaman’s spokesman, told reporters Friday that “news will be made” at a press conference tomorrow.

As I noted yesterday, Murkowski (despite her opposition to a number of key energy proposals) has often worked closely with committee chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to come to bipartisan compromises, most notably on the committee’s comprehensive energy bill, which passed the panel last year. In fact, partly because of Murkowski, the committee is known for working across party lines. If Murkowski loses her primary race, will all of that change?

Politico breaks down the committee politics, noting that Murkowski’s replacement could be a Republican “who may favor a harder line against federal environmental protections and would be less inclined to work with Democrats.”

The next Republican on the seniority list behind Murkowski is Richard Burr, who is in a tough general election fight in North Carolina. Should the Republicans take the Senate and Burr assume the top spot, he would be the first Southerner to lead the panel since Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) in the 1990s.

The remaining GOP members are John Barrasso (Wyo.), Jim Risch (Idaho), John McCain (Ariz.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.).

Whoever the top Republican is will very likely be in a much stronger position to affect legislation next year, either as ranking member on a committee with smaller margins (the current breakdown is 13 Democrats to 10 Republicans) or as chairman.

But she has also often been a thorn in the side of many environmentalists. She introduced a resolution (which ultimately failed) that would have effectively blocked the Obama administration from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Hill noted this morning that Miller questions the existence of climate change. Murkowski, for her part, has acknowledged that climate change is an important issue, but has taken issue with the potential costs associated with some cap-and-trade programs.